First Posting on this forum (altough I'm reading it for some time) :D
For the line of sight, I would think that by definition, limit means, that you can target a square which you can see but has concealment. See for example "fog cloud" spell, which grants concealment 5 feet away. But you can't cast 10 feet away, because it has total concealment.
In this case "limit" would mean, hinder, but not prevent normal sight. This is my humble opinion.
The Web problem is more difficult, as per the rules your DM seems right. But logic says "spiders use webs to catch insects", spell says "similiar to spiderwebs" & wasps are insects, this implies they are "grappled" or however you want to call it.
But well, normally the DM uses logic, and the players use rules-lawyering (at least that's what I'm used to).
I would accept the decision of your DM, but next time the rules are against logic in your favor, the rules applay again.
I hope you can avoid the fist-fight, and if not, good luck!
|
Ex-Druid (deceased), temporary Monk (deceased) and current Shadow Assassin from Polish-Jack's group in this thread.
So the other night me and my fellow adventurers were minding our own business when we were suddenly and inexplicably assailed by swarms - wasps to be specific. Neat. The clever history-major (a wizard) cast Web (Core: 368). Our intrepid English-major DM, however, ruled that Web is a grappling effect, and that the swarm subtype is immune to grapple effects
ppps....
It's a little weird, but the rules do back up disallowing web on a swarm. They do have a lot of immunities. Some of them can't even be damaged by weapons. And because entangle applies a condition rather than grappling, that spell oddly works. I would assume the difference is that web has gaps that the swarm slips through, leaving very little of its mass on the web and moving past it, while entangle changes the terrain and can affect all the moving parts simultaneously.
The line of effect question: line of effect is a defined game term. Clear is not. I don't think clear is meant to imply new rules. "Clear line of effect" is probably redundant phrasing on the author's part.
Usually (but not always) if you have a line of sight you also have line of effect.
Example of Line of Sight without Line of Effect: Looking through a plate glass window. You can see the target, but you can't hit it with your fireball as the little pea will strike the glass and detonate prematurely.
Example of Line of Effect without line of sight: A pitch-black night. You hear a twig snap and launch a fireball at the square you thought you heard the sound come from. By rule, the target has TOTAL CONCEALMENT, but your fireball can still affect him.
Slim Gage´s explanation is perfect.
Re the Web/Entangle vs. Swarms (grapple immune)
I would just allow Web, but I don`t think it`s out of bounds for the DM to say it doesn`t work.
In this type of case, I would always give the player in question some sort of Knowledge or Spellcraft roll to reflect the chance that their character would know that Web wouldn`t work against such a target (if they pass, I would let them change their action).
Web creates a many-layered mass of strong, sticky strands. These strands trap those caught in them. The strands are similar to spiderwebs but far larger and tougher. These masses must be anchored to two or more solid and diametrically opposed points or else the web collapses upon itself and disappears. Creatures caught within a web become grappled by the sticky fibers. Attacking a creature in a web doesn’t cause you to become grappled.
*rolls up sleeves* Emphasis mine.
I get a little arbitrary in my interpretations, but I do agree that beyond the condition immunity possessed by the swarm (to grapple), that the strands are like magically sticky ropes instead of strands the size of a normal spider's web (tiny/diminutive). Of course, if the caster were willing to cast enough webs, say, equal to the CR of the swarm, he would reduce the size by one.
Think of it as the swarm going over it, but after the first few get stuck, the rest of the swarm would just climb over the stuck bodies and continue onward.
|
It's a little weird, but the rules do back up disallowing web on a swarm. They do have a lot of immunities. Some of them can't even be damaged by weapons. And because entangle applies a condition rather than grappling, that spell oddly works. I would assume the difference is that web has gaps that the swarm slips through, leaving very little of its mass on the web and moving past it, while entangle changes the terrain and can affect all the moving parts simultaneously.
I don't agree. You're probably basing your decision on this from the Swarm subtype description:
Also, they cannot be tripped, grappled, or bull rushed, and they cannot grapple an opponent.
But the web spell doesn't say that it grapples the creatures in the web (which would require a CMB roll), it only says that creatures caught in the web gain the grappled condition. That's different because the second paragraph in the web description describes what it takes to be "caught in the web" (the Reflex save and all that).
I have no problem with a web capturing insects. IMC the rules lawyers get to state their case and then I decide. If they want to grumble, they can do so at the end of the session. :)
So Pathfinder making Web a Grapple instead of a Entanglement effect makes Swarms immune?
I'd ask for the 3.5 version of Web.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/web.htm
See it entangles, but Pathfinder changed it to grappled. I have no clue why.
pps. There was another minor dispute between myself and the ex-DM local ruleslawyer (a cleric). If this isn't resolved it may come down to fist-fighting, and I'm not a very strong person. So please, for my sake, resolve our dispute: The rules state that in order to cast an area-effect spell, you must have a clear line of effect to the point of origin. However, "line of effect," by definition (Core: 215), "[is] not blocked by fog, darkness, and other factors that limit normal sight." So which is it? Does "clear" imply no fog? Or can you cast a fireball into darkness/fog/etc? Further, what are the implications for casting as a blind person? It seems nonsensical to be able to cast a point-of-origin spell to a specific location if you're blind. Yet, as per the rules, this seems allowable (this is particularly relevant because his character is blind past 60ft). Is there another section we've missed?
Well, if using a battle grid and models, it would be an easy matter to resolve IMO. Just target a square and hope your spell hits something and hope that nothing is in the path between you and that square. This is assuming your GM doesn't put opponents or objects you can't see on the battle grid until you can somehow see them.
The rules state that in order to cast an area-effect spell, you must have a clear line of effect to the point of origin. However, "line of effect," by definition (Core: 215), "[is] not blocked by fog, darkness, and other factors that limit normal sight." So which is it? Does "clear" imply no fog? Or can you cast a fireball into darkness/fog/etc?
Line of Effect: A line of effect is a straight, unblocked path that indicates what a spell can affect. A line of effect is canceled by a solid barrier.
In the case of line of effect, "clear" means "unblocked by a solid barrier".
|
|
It's a little weird, but the rules do back up disallowing web on a swarm. They do have a lot of immunities. Some of them can't even be damaged by weapons. And because entangle applies a condition rather than grappling, that spell oddly works. I would assume the difference is that web has gaps that the swarm slips through, leaving very little of its mass on the web and moving past it, while entangle changes the terrain and can affect all the moving parts simultaneously.I don't agree. You're probably basing your decision on this from the Swarm subtype description:
Also, they cannot be tripped, grappled, or bull rushed, and they cannot grapple an opponent.But the web spell doesn't say that it grapples the creatures in the web (which would require a CMB roll), it only says that creatures caught in the web gain the grappled condition. That's different because the second paragraph in the web description describes what it takes to be "caught in the web" (the Reflex save and all that).
I have no problem with a web capturing insects. IMC the rules lawyers get to state their case and then I decide. If they want to grumble, they can do so at the end of the session. :)
That's an interesting interpretation because it matches the reason why entangle would work. The spell effect bestows a condition, if it's legal for the swarm to receive the condition.
But since you asked, I was actually basing it on this sentence: "A swarm can move through cracks or holes large enough for its component creatures."
Your interpretation may be right, but that depends entirely on which conditions can be applied to swarms. I think allowing for magically induced grapple conditions likewise opens the door for swarms to be made prone and a number of other conditions that are usually applied through combat maneuvers but can be forced on targets with magical area effects. It's a tough call.
|
I would like to add that if line of sight were the only criteria by which a caster could cast their spells then there would be no need for any concept referring to "line of effect".
Fog can be cast through because there is a distinction made between line of sight and effect. (See Also Slim's reference to solid barriers.
|
|
So, to sum:
That seems like a good consensus. I've heard from other DMs that would rule the swarm/web thing on a case to case basis, depending on the type of swarm. I don't personally like rulings that don't settle things once and for all, so even if I don't like where the web ruling might lead, it's still settled rules, at least. Whether it becomes precedent...well, that's one bridge to cross or burn later.
RE: Line of effect.
Vision impairment does not effect the accuracy of area-of-affect spells. Blind players may select a square and reliably be able to cast that spell in that square. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that mechanic. I agree that it is the proper way the rules should be understood, but it doesn't sit well with me. There just seems to be something wrong with a blind wizard being able to accurately cast fireball.
The SRD has this to say:
"Target: You must be able to see or touch the target...""Effect: You must designate the location where these things are to appear, either by seeing it or defining it..."
"Ray: As with a ranged weapon, you can fire into the dark or at an invisible creature and hope you hit something..."
"Area: Regardless of the shape of the area, you select the point where the spell originates..."
It seems quite apparent that even with areas, you must be able to see your target to hit it. I know the rules lawyers among us will loudly point out that the RAW doesn't explicitly say that you have to see your point of origin for an area effect, but comments like that needlessly destroy good ol' common sense.
So, no. No, a blind caster cannot accurately cast a fireball into a bank of fog at an invisible monster on a moonless night. The player can pick out an intersection he'd like to hit, but as with everything else a blind person tries to do, he has a 50% chance to miss outright. In the case of area spells, this DM would treat it like a splash weapon that misses.
Mal
|
|
As a DM here is how I would handle things.
"Quit Metagaming."
If things continue "Rule 0, deal with it."
Worse case scenario "Deduct a level."
followed by "hey, why did my players leave the table?"
while I understand your sentiment when people are being boorish and trying to game the system, this seems a reasonable, creative approach to handling a problem (catch a fly er.. wasp in a web).
Games are cooperative. If players have no input on how to interpret things when you run into the gray areas of the rules (and this is a most decidedly gray area), you run the risk of losing buy in.
EDIT: Hey, you know what? Ignore me. I realized after I typed this that I didn't need to change your mind. I guess the judge dread "I am the law" draconian reaction to a legitimate rules question saddened me as a GM.
Swarms are kind of annoying mechanic wise, kind of like a star-shaped spike being pounded into a round hole. You can get it in, but there's gonna be some pain involved.
As to effect and blindness... As stated above. If you can't see the place where you are targeting, then you are basically blindly throwing a splash weapon and hoping it hits in the right spot.
However, just to clarify something above, you don't have to see the enemy, just the place you want to target the fireball. So, some examples :
If there is a 30 foot fog that's 10 feet high, and you know someone is inside... target your fireball dead center 1 foot above the fog (which you should be able to see), and let the area effect take care of the rest. For those who argue 'but you have to target a square', I point out you can target a square, or the intersection of a square (including the intersection of the square 'above' the fog bank with the fog bank). This should fireball most of the fog bank legally. In addition, the people in the fog bank probably won't know that the fireball is hitting until it blows (they have some penalties to perception too).
If you have an enemy who's ducking up from behind a wall, or from behind a corner to snipe and then hide again each round (move 5ft, attack, adjust 5 ft, or via feat or class ability) then target your area effect spell at the wall edge or corner. If they are in range, your spell affects them, you don't have to actually see the enemy to damage him, just have to see a spot close enough to get him in range.
Creative Director
|
Swarms are really kinda tough. And every additional low-level effect that helps a party not get TPKed by them is good.
And flavorwise, the image of a swarm of wasps getting stuck in a web is very very logical.
Web, therefore, and as an area effect that targets multiple creatures and NOT an effect that targets a single creature, should work on swarms.
Although I'd probably house rule that it WOULDN'T work on a swarm of spiders.
As a GM, I would probably have allowed Web to trap insects — because that is what spider webs are for. I highly value the ability of players to roleplay magic and draw logical conclusions over living in a world where multiple definitions of "grapple" are necessary.
In other words: the rule of cool applies.
Your GM may well disagree. That makes this a style-of-play issue, which means you will never attain a satisfactory answer on the forums. Your best bet is to go with your own GM's ruling, and maybe discuss it with him (although that seems like it may be fruitless). If he says: "Your character is not allowed to be cool in that way" then that's what he says and he's the GM.
RE: Line of effect.
Vision impairment does not effect the accuracy of area-of-affect spells. Blind players may select a square and reliably be able to cast that spell in that square. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that mechanic. I agree that it is the proper way the rules should be understood, but it doesn't sit well with me. There just seems to be something wrong with a blind wizard being able to accurately cast fireball.The SRD has this to say:
"Target: You must be able to see or touch the target..."
"Effect: You must designate the location where these things are to appear, either by seeing it or defining it..."
"Ray: As with a ranged weapon, you can fire into the dark or at an invisible creature and hope you hit something..."
"Area: Regardless of the shape of the area, you select the point where the spell originates..."It seems quite apparent that even with areas, you must be able to see your target to hit it. I know the rules lawyers among us will loudly point out that the RAW doesn't explicitly say that you have to see your point of origin for an area effect, but comments like that needlessly destroy good ol' common sense.
So, no. No, a blind caster cannot accurately cast a fireball into a bank of fog at an invisible monster on a moonless night. The player can pick out an intersection he'd like to hit, but as with everything else a blind person tries to do, he has a 50% chance to miss outright. In the case of area spells, this DM would treat it like a splash weapon that misses.
Mal
I disagree.
From your own quoted aiming rules, only the first one ("Target") requires you to see the target. You only need to designate an "Area" spell ("I designate a spot 30 feet directly in front of me" works just fine), you don't need to see to aim a "Ray" spell at all (it explicitly says so), and you don't need to see to aim an "Area" spell ("I select a point 30 feet directly in front of me" is good enough).
Line of Effect is important. Line of Sight is not, except for "Target" spells which explicitly note themselves to be an exception.
|
|
Swarms are really kinda tough. And every additional low-level effect that helps a party not get TPKed by them is good.
And flavorwise, the image of a swarm of wasps getting stuck in a web is very very logical.
Web, therefore, and as an area effect that targets multiple creatures and NOT an effect that targets a single creature, should work on swarms.
Although I'd probably house rule that it WOULDN'T work on a swarm of spiders.
Cool to have a reasonable answer for why the fine print should be relaxed on this spell. I ran a lot of swarm encounters at Gencon and had one just last night in Kingmaker. Swarms are effectively an adventure-stopper if they're between you and something else and the party has no area damage.
Would you say anything they're no explicitly immune to is also valid as a magical attack, like entangle or even a grease spell? (the last one seems sort of dodgy but it is an area effect spell...)
|
Creative Director
|
Swarms are really kinda tough. And every additional low-level effect that helps a party not get TPKed by them is good.
And flavorwise, the image of a swarm of wasps getting stuck in a web is very very logical.
Web, therefore, and as an area effect that targets multiple creatures and NOT an effect that targets a single creature, should work on swarms.
Although I'd probably house rule that it WOULDN'T work on a swarm of spiders.
Cool to have a reasonable answer for why the fine print should be relaxed on this spell. I ran a lot of swarm encounters at Gencon and had one just last night in Kingmaker. Swarms are effectively an adventure-stopper if they're between you and something else and the party has no area damage.
Would you say anything they're no explicitly immune to is also valid as a magical attack, like entangle or even a grease spell? (the last one seems sort of dodgy but it is an area effect spell...)
I'd say that grease would work on a swarm... unless the swarm can fly, in which case grease wouldn't work at all.
I'd say that grease would work on a swarm... unless the swarm can fly, in which case grease wouldn't work at all.
Ah, but then Gust of Wind should be brutal - wipe out that whole flying swarm. Yeah, that 2d6 damage should (mechanically) be applied to the whole swarm, but (simulationistically) I can't see a reason that it would kill a every Stirge in its area but would only kill a small percentage of mosquitos in the same area.
Vision impairment does not effect the accuracy of area-of-affect spells. Blind players may select a square and reliably be able to cast that spell in that square.
No, a blind caster cannot accurately cast a fireball...
I disagree.From your own quoted aiming rules, only the first one ("Target") requires you to see the target. You only need to designate an "Area" spell ("I designate a spot 30 feet directly in front of me" works just fine), you don't need to see to aim a "Ray" spell at all (it explicitly says so), and you don't need to see to aim an "Area" spell ("I select a point 30 feet directly in front of me" is good...
I think you missed my point. I was not arguing that a blind caster couldn't cast the spell at all, only that he couldn't cast it accurately. Area spells require you to select your point of origin. Perhaps the squirreliness of the rules allows for both your interpretation and mine; I'm resorting to commonsensicalness in my reasoning. That is, how does someone select a point he can't see? How does he say "I select a spot 30 feet directly in front of me" when he doesn't know what that spot is, or (more importantly) who's in it?
Again, I'm not saying he can't cast the spell at all; I'm only saying he doesn't know where "30 feet directly in front of me" is. So, for instance, a growl emminated from a dense fog, I say the caster could cast a fireball in that general distance and direction, but as he cannot see/select his point of origin, he cannot cast the spell with accuracy, and so he is liable to miss the point of origin.
That's all.
Mal
Vision impairment does not effect the accuracy of area-of-affect spells. Blind players may select a square and reliably be able to cast that spell in that square.
No, a blind caster cannot accurately cast a fireball...
I disagree.From your own quoted aiming rules, only the first one ("Target") requires you to see the target. You only need to designate an "Area" spell ("I designate a spot 30 feet directly in front of me" works just fine), you don't need to see to aim a "Ray" spell at all (it explicitly says so), and you don't need to see to aim an "Area" spell ("I select a point 30 feet directly in front of me" is good...
I think you missed my point. I was not arguing that a blind caster couldn't cast the spell at all, only that he couldn't cast it accurately. Area spells require you to select your point of origin. Perhaps the squirreliness of the rules allows for both your interpretation and mine; I'm resorting to commonsensicalness in my reasoning. That is, how does someone select a point he can't see? How does he say "I select a spot 30 feet directly in front of me" when he doesn't know what that spot is, or (more importantly) who's in it?
Again, I'm not saying he can't cast the spell at all; I'm only saying he doesn't know where "30 feet directly in front of me" is. So, for instance, a growl emminated from a dense fog, I say the caster could cast a fireball in that general distance and direction, but as he cannot see/select his point of origin, he cannot cast the spell with accuracy, and so he is liable to miss the point of origin.
That's all.
Mal
And that's why the targets of the spell in that situation get total concealment, and so you have a 50% miss chance.
|
As a DM here is how I would handle things.
"Quit Metagaming."
If things continue "Rule 0, deal with it."
Worse case scenario "Deduct a level."
followed by "hey, why did my players leave the table?"
while I understand your sentiment when people are being boorish and trying to game the system, this seems a reasonable, creative approach to handling a problem (catch a fly er.. wasp in a web).
Games are cooperative. If players have no input on how to interpret things when you run into the gray areas of the rules (and this is a most decidedly gray area), you run the risk of losing buy in.
EDIT: Hey, you know what? Ignore me. I realized after I typed this that I didn't need to change your mind. I guess the judge dread "I am the law" draconian reaction to a legitimate rules question saddened me as a GM.
You shouldn't apologize for being right, friend. I am really sick and tired of draconian GMs, DMs, STs, whatever the hell you want to call them. Without players you have no game. I'm not saying that constant arguing with the GM at the table is good, it's not. It is a game, it is supposed to be fun. Playing under a totalitarian regime is not fun.
Graywulfe