| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Hi!
I'm planning to play a Witch and looked up the forum for some anwsers.
I got that Evil Eye different effect can be applied to the same foe, but the range of some Hexes are still unknown (I have Ward in mind but a guess there's more...)
I also got a little bonus question about Supernatural ability:
1 : Do i need two, one or zero free hands to use them?
2 : Do I have to talk to use them?
3 : Do people know i'm using hexes on them if there no visual effects (Ex:Could I curse a guy with Evil Eye if I suspect he want to attack us but don't want to start the fight if he's actually not our ennemy?)
Thanks!
Supernatual abilities are not spells so they don't need components. You only need to be able to speak if the ability calls for it.
There is no visual effect but it does take effort, enough to be a standard action so you can't do anything else. I would think that if someone were staring at me i would know something was going in, in a world of magic, unless they were hidden.
So I guess I could forget automatically casting Evil Eye to lower skill check on each NPC to help against Bluff...
the range of some Hexes are still unknown (I have Ward in mind but a guess there's more...)
Ward doesn't specify. Technically, you could say that it has unlimited range. I think it's more reasonable to say it's 30 feet, like most of the other targeted hexes. Ask your DM.
I also got a little bonus question about Supernatural ability:1 : Do i need two, one or zero free hands to use them?
2 : Do I have to talk to use them?
3 : Do people know i'm using hexes on them if there no visual effects (Ex:Could I curse a guy with Evil Eye if I suspect he want to attack us but don't want to start the fight if he's actually not our ennemy?)
No hands, as it does not have a Somatic component like some spells do.
No talking, it does not have a Verbal component.
I think you would know if someone hexed you, especially if you failed the save and are under some kind of penalty. As to whether you know who did it, it's a gray area, so ask your DM. Most of the time, you wouldn't want NPCs casting on you without a chance to know what's going on, so it should be the same way for them. Maybe a bluff check to look innocent?
("All right, so you're nonchalant. Quit rubbing our noses in it.")
|
1) Either zero or one; it doesn't say because it doesn't really matter. Handedness beyond "you have a maximum of two hand slots for holding stuff" is not important.
For instance, a Wizard with an Arcane Bond that is a Staff (in other words, every iconic wizard ever created) is technically not capable of casting spells at all, because he has to be "wielding" his staff (which takes two hands) and also needs a hand free to make somatic gestures (so that's a total of three, which he doesn't have). Thing is, no one cares.
Likewise, no one is going to care whether or not your witch technically has to take her hand off of her staff or crossbow in order to use a hex. No one cares if the half-orc with a greatsword technically can't pull out a potion and drink it. No one cares if the cleric technically has to drop his mace or large shield in order to heal the Fighter.
Now, if the cleric starts trying to cast offensive spells, someone might care, but really, it's called "put a hoop on the bottom of the mace and swing it back into your hand", also known as a weapon cord.
The point is, I've never seen or heard of a GM who actually made an issue out of it.
2) No. There are no real somatic components, either.
This next bit is technically sort of a house rule: There is (and has been for a long time) a general consensus both on these boards and on the old WotC boards that Supernatural Abilities (and spell-like abilities, and Force powers from the d20 Star Wars stuff, etc) do require you to do something rather obvious, and also require something that indicates your target (pointing and screaming, glaring in a blatant way, or tapping his shoulder as you walk past all work). If you want to not do this, you have to make a check to go unnoticed (bluff or stealth, depending on what you are trying to do). Some GMs run it the othe way, with everyone around getting a chance to notice what you did.
Again, technically a house rule, as there's nothing in the books to support this when applied to spell-like and supernatural abilities, but it seems unfair to the victim and his friends (here meaning "it really sucks when the GM does it to you without either making a conceal check or letting the party make a notice check, so you shouldn't be able do it to him without rolling either"). Plus it makes for a better narrative, and fits with what we see in media (and thus in our heads) all the time.
It's one of those "rules patches" that has been around forever and everyone uses, but isn't actually written down anywhere.
3) That's a hard question.
First of all, there's my response to "2"; technically there's nothing obvious to indicate to third parties that you are doing anything, but I've never seen anyone play it that way.
Secondly, there's nothing that directly addresses your question, but there is the "charm rule": pass the save and you know something happened, fail the save and you don't automatically know.
Hit a guy with Charm Person; if he passes, he knows something happened, but unless he's got spellcraft or saw the caster or something, he doesn't know exactly what. If he fails, he could very well know that he's charmed (if he had spellcraft and identified the spell as it went off, for instance); he just doesn't care. Identifying the effect and resisting the effect are two different things.
So it really depends on your GM and on the individual situation.
***
For your specific case, if I were at the table (either player or GM) I'd encourage you not to - it's "hostile magic", just like casting bless in front of the guy (and not also giving it to him) would be hostile magic, and if he notices he is quite rightly going to be concerned and highly suspicious of your motives, because, while he's got a good chance of catching you doing something, his odds of knowing exactly what is was are low - he won't know it was "just" a potential -2 to some rolls; it might have been a charm attempt, or a "put him to sleep and slit his throat" attempt, or any number of other things.
I forgot about ward. SU's generally work like spells with regards to targeting, meaning you need line of sight and line of effect. In short it seems that if they can be seen they can be warded.
They really should have put a range limit in though. Officially there is not one.
I forgot about ward. SU's generally work like spells with regards to targeting, meaning you need line of sight and line of effect. In short it seems that if they can be seen they can be warded.
They really should have put a range limit in though. Officially there is not one.
I guess there's still no official ruling for the range problem. :S
I for thinking that maybe 'touch' would be more balanced, but I'm not really sure about that. I've read a bit about it in the forums and it seems like it's a pretty good hex so I'm a little bit affraid it would be too powerfull as a 'line of sight'. Thouths?
1) Either zero or one; it doesn't say because it doesn't really matter. Handedness beyond "you have a maximum of two hand slots for holding stuff" is not important.
[...]
The point is, I've never seen or heard of a GM who actually made an issue out of it.
I do. That just makes Light Shield and the Quick Draw feat something to consider using. It also makes the combat more tense and rewarding IMO. :)
Still I always let people held there 2-handed weapon in one hand and vice-versa as a free action. They just can't use them want they don't wield them properly.
And quarterstaff can be used with only one hand so the ‘wizard unable to cast spell’ is not a problem (that’s how REAL wizard use staff!)
3) That's a hard question.
I was just thinking about that. So it be the same for spells? And Spell/Ability/Power get noticed unless they're Charm or Illusion, even if they don't affects anything physically?
Edit : Okay so trying to post two message in a row will just delete to older one; lesson learned. -.-
By reading the forum, Ward seemed like a top choise hex, would it be balance as a 'line of sight'? I was initially thinking to make it 'touch'. But i'm a n00b so... XD
Still I always let people held there 2-handed weapon in one hand and vice-versa as a free action. They just can't use them want they don't wield them properly.
Free action to let go (no longer wielding, just holding) cast spell or whatever, free action grip weapon again (for AoOs or whatever).
By reading the forum, Ward seemed like a top choise hex, would it be balance as a 'line of sight'?
It's less useful as touch instead of ranged, but I don't think it's broken either way. Remember, the bonus won't stack with Protection from Evil/Chaos/Etc, or Rings of Protection, or Cloaks of Resistance, all very commonly used. Also, you can only have it on one guy at a time, and never on yourself, and each time it drops you need a standard action to put it back up.
Still, it's nice, and especially if your group splits up or someone goes scouting. If the ward drops, you know someone's getting beat up somewhere =)
I forgot about ward. SU's generally work like spells with regards to targeting, meaning you need line of sight and line of effect. In short it seems that if they can be seen they can be warded.
They really should have put a range limit in though. Officially there is not one.
I guess there's still no official ruling for the range problem. :S
I for thinking that maybe 'touch' would be more balanced, but I'm not really sure about that. I've read a bit about it in the forums and it seems like it's a pretty good hex so I'm a little bit affraid it would be too powerfull as a 'line of sight'. Thouths?
I would make it 30 or 60 feet. I do think we should hit the FAQ button on it so it is brought to their attention.
| 10 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
What is the distance limit on the Witch's ward?
FAQ me.
PS: The only reason I did not FAQ the OP's first post is because it has 3 questions and they prefer each question to be FAQ'd separately.
Edit : Okay so trying to post two message in a row will just delete to older one; lesson learned. -.-
Lesson learned fail. -.- (I'll get it eventually)
Quarterstaff : I derped. It can be used as a two-handed weapon (at least in 3.0. but whatever, point is you can still cast spell with it and all them (Unless it's a werd weapon that need to be attached to the hand or something I guess)
Ward's Range : Wraith : FAQed it. Thanks, I didn't know this was something. :)
Grick : Yes Ward is not god like, but for something this versatile, at-will and obtainable at lvl 1 it's pretty good compare to some other Hexes.
Can someone notice you've affected him with a supernatural ability even if there's no physically visible? :
For noticing : It's more fair and spells get noticed (except Illusions and Charms)
Against noticing : There nothing to notice
Other thoughts (or official ruling) for this problem?
Edit : Found out a other ongoing topic about silenced and stactic spell that talk a bit about the problem but it's still don't talk about supernatural ability: TOPIC