I wizard is blinded, either by a spell or some mundane means. He tries to cast, say, Lightning Bolt. What happens? What if it's a cleric casting Flame Strike, any difference at all? Thanks.
|
The wizard can't see where creatures are, whether enemies or allies. If he wants to pinpoint their location by hearing, he must make a Perception check, as if they were invisible. If he moves, he doesn't know the layout of areas he hasn't seen. Otherwise he can cast and place area spells without a problem. No difference for a cleric.
The way I play is that the spellcaster MUST be able to see or touch the target/target point. I figure this is fair enough since spellcasters can target exactly where they wan't thier spells to go (wheres melee and missile attacks still have to roll to hit the broadside of a barn).
Good question. I thought the rules said somewhere that a caster must see a subject in order to target it?
You must make choices about whom a spell is to affect or where an effect is to originate, depending on a spell's type. The next entry in a spell description defines the spell's target (or targets), its effect, or its area, as appropriate.
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.
I'm guessing spells with TARGETS you need to see... but perhaps spreads,bursts, and emanations you do not?
|
Well, right below that on the page:
Effect: Some spells create or summon things rather than affecting things that are already present.
You must designate the location where these things are to appear, either by seeing it or defining it. Range determines how far away an effect can appear, but if the effect is mobile, after it appears it can move regardless of the spell's range.
While this is referring to "effect" spells like Fog Cloud rather than "area" spells like Lightning Bolt, the same principle should apply in that spells that "create or summon things rather than affecting things that are already present" can be aimed blind as long as you define the area, for example "burst centered 30ft to my left and 20 ft forwards."
Target Spells can only be cast on creatures or objects that you can touch when blinded... most other spells can be used relatively normally, though since you can't see there is always a greater danger of catching allies and such in an area of effect, or having your fireball go off early by firing its bead into a wall or something. for rays and such the character would have to 'pick a square' and if there was a creature in that square the ray shooter might hit it (there would be a 50% miss chance) etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A few thoughts:
1. There's an entry in the book that states if you are being affected by a spell and you try to cast a spell of your own, you have to make a concentration check. The DC for this is the DC of the spell affecting you plus the level of the spell you are casting. I take this to mean that being blinded by the SPELL blindness forces this concentration check, but non-magical blindness (someone gives you a pie in the face, thus blinding you) does not. This also means that the effect would be the same if you were deafened OR blinded.
2. I personally tend to think that being blinded (magically or not) would cause you to to be more likely to mess up somatic components. I mean, grab a paper and pencil and close your eyes, turn around two or three times, sit down and try to write the word "Lightning Bolt" correctly, with all the i's dotted and t's crossed, etc. It's not going to look as good as it would if you had your eyes open. Writing, like somatic spell components, requires "precise movement of the hand". In my opinion, there ought to be some spell failure percentage for being blinded, but none exists in the RAW, so as DM I'd have to house rule it and make up a number for it.
3. Players often tend to measure the exact placement of spells like Lightning Bolt and Flame Strike with unrealistically high precision under normal circumstances. Counting squares to avoid hitting allies, while maximizing affected monsters, etc. I don't think, as DM, the blinded lightning bolt caster ought to get to draw the 100ft bolt line like that, even if they make the concentration check AND roll the spell failure percentile. I would expect some randomness in the line's placement under the best case scenario. I'm willing to grant that the caster can choose which corner of his own square it would originate from, but beyond that, I don't think he could direct the bolt line so precisely that it hits one creature 100ft away and misses the three party members that he want's to avoid in the process. Not to mention the problem of missing high or low. You could easily aim the bolt such that it terminates at the floor before it hits the intended "target" or else shoot it over his head.
4. All of the above discussion assumes that the blinded caster is still facing the direction he was facing before he went blind, and that the intended targets are still standing where they were standing. Give it one or two combat rounds, and none of that will be true, probably.
For the sake of argument, the same questions apply if the caster is in a Deeper Darkness area and can't see through it, or even if he's in a Fog Cloud, etc.
Do you think that simply not allowing Lightning Bolt, Fire Ball, and the like when the caster is blinded is overly harsh? I mean, in a real pinch, the caster could drop a fire ball centered on himself (if he had Protection from Fire going at the time, might not be a bad thing). What about simply not allowing blindness?
There's an entry in the book that states if you are being affected by a spell and you try to cast a spell of your own, you have to make a concentration check.
Spell: "If you are affected by a spell while attempting to cast a spell of your own, you must make a concentration check or lose the spell you are casting."
If someone had a readied action to cast blindness/deafness on you when you began casting a spell of your own, sure.
However, just because you're under the effect of blindness/deafness, doesn't mean you are affected by it. What I mean is if you are hit by a spell while casting, it can mess you up. But if you just have duration of a spell that has already taken effect, it doesn't.
A few thoughts:
1. There's an entry in the book that states if you are being affected by a spell and you try to cast a spell of your own, you have to make a concentration check. The DC for this is the DC of the spell affecting you plus the level of the spell you are casting. I take this to mean that being blinded by the SPELL blindness forces this concentration check, but non-magical blindness (someone gives you a pie in the face, thus blinding you) does not. This also means that the effect would be the same if you were deafened OR blinded.
2. I personally tend to think that being blinded (magically or not) would cause you to to be more likely to mess up somatic components. I mean, grab a paper and pencil and close your eyes, turn around two or three times, sit down and try to write the word "Lightning Bolt" correctly, with all the i's dotted and t's crossed, etc. It's not going to look as good as it would if you had your eyes open. Writing, like somatic spell components, requires "precise movement of the hand". In my opinion, there ought to be some spell failure percentage for being blinded, but none exists in the RAW, so as DM I'd have to house rule it and make up a number for it.
3. Players often tend to measure the exact placement of spells like Lightning Bolt and Flame Strike with unrealistically high precision under normal circumstances. Counting squares to avoid hitting allies, while maximizing affected monsters, etc. I don't think, as DM, the blinded lightning bolt caster ought to get to draw the 100ft bolt line like that, even if they make the concentration check AND roll the spell failure percentile. I would expect some randomness in the line's placement under the best case scenario. I'm willing to grant that the caster can choose which corner of his own square it would originate from, but beyond that, I don't think he could direct the bolt line so precisely that it hits one creature 100ft away and misses the three party members that he want's to avoid in the process. Not to...
In response to your Number 2. do this. Close your eyes. Turn around 3 times and then use sign language (asssuming you know it) to sign "lightening bolt" I bet you can do it no problem!
I agree with Grick's reading of the rule in question.
To Grick's point, I guess you would have to rule it that way, otherwise anyone who currently has Mage Armor, Resist Fire, Protection from Arrows, etc would count as "being affected by a spell" and it seems silly to make a spell caster make a save under those circumstances. I wonder, if a human (non-undead) wizard is about to cast a spell and you use a readied action to cast Cure Moderate Wounds on him, does that wizard then require a concentration check to get the spell off? Is the answer the same whether the wizard is a friendly or an enemy NPC?
Getting back to my original point, I still would like to hear more from the pros out there in terms of what your group does to handle the situation of a blinded spell caster trying to cast Lightning Bolt. It seems like I either have to disallow it entirely, for simplicity's sake alone, or else come up with some kind of really detailed scheme for handling it which is not in the book. Both options seem undesirable to me.
To Grick's point, I guess you would have to rule it that way, otherwise anyone who currently has Mage Armor, Resist Fire, Protection from Arrows, etc would count as "being affected by a spell" and it seems silly to make a spell caster make a save under those circumstances.
Effected, not affected.
Affect is the action, effect is the result. Someone with better English can explain the difference more clearly. (I had to look it up to make sure I had it right)
I wonder, if a human (non-undead) wizard is about to cast a spell and you use a readied action to cast Cure Moderate Wounds on him, does that wizard then require a concentration check to get the spell off? Is the answer the same whether the wizard is a friendly or an enemy NPC?
RAI: Probably not.
RAW: Maybe, kinda.Sentence 1: "If you are affected by a spell while attempting to cast a spell of your own, you must make a concentration check or lose the spell you are casting."
Seems pretty clear-cut.
Sentence 2: "If the spell affecting you deals damage, the DC is 10 + the damage taken + the level of the spell you're casting."
Ok, the cure isn't dealing damage, so that's irrelevant.
Sentence 3: "If the spell interferes with you or distracts you in some other way, the DC is the spell's saving throw DC + the level of the spell you're casting."
There we go. Does having moderate wounds magically cured distract you in some way? If so, then there's your DC.
I think it probably would count as being distracting (flesh knitting, pain soothing, etc.) but that's really harsh, so I would probably ignore it in a home game. It would probably only come up when a friendly PC is casting a 1 round (or more) spell and someone heals him while casting.
Getting back to my original point, I still would like to hear more from the pros out there in terms of what your group does to handle the situation of a blinded spell caster trying to cast Lightning Bolt. It seems like I either have to disallow it entirely, for simplicity's sake alone, or else come up with some kind of really detailed scheme for handling it which is not in the book. Both options seem undesirable to me.
I'm certainly not a pro, but I would just trust the players to do something reasonable (with a bit of verbal encouragement, if needed). The character would know where everyone was before he was blinded, so if an ally tells him "The bugbear didn't move, blast it!" then he could direct a bolt into the square he last saw it in. Likewise, I would allow similar modifications. "Augh, it moved twenty feet north, help!" would mean he could change direction, but I wouldn't let him carefully plot out a line or point of origin, just a general direction. Someone would probably end up throwing a die at the mat and saying it hit there, or just blasting with non-optimal positions. I understand that this doesn't really help.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Grick,
I've GMed my share of PFS scenarios, and there are casters out there who like to use blindness whenever possible. (Most recently, in "Dawn of the Scarlet Sun". The wizard got through her SR, and she failed her save.) I would like that to hamper the bad guy without ending the fight.
Affected" is correct. Nobody is ever "being effected" by a spell; it means something else.
Are you not effected by Mage Armor when it's granting you an AC bonus?
Rephrase: If you are under the effects of Mage Armor, you are effected by it. Right?
You had to be Affected by it in order for that to happen, but once it's happened, the Effect remains.
Or is it a tense issue? People could have been effected by something, but they're never currently being effected?
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
No, you are affected by it. It affects you. You are influenced or altered.
Effect is rarely used as a verb; it means to bring into being. To be "effected by" a spell, the spell would have to be responsible for your existence. You "effect change" in an organization; that means you are responsible for the existance of that change.
No, you are affected by it. It affects you. You are influenced or altered.
Effect is rarely used as a verb; it means to bring into being. To be "effected by" a spell, the spell would have to be responsible for your existence. You "effect change" in an organization; that means you are responsible for the existance of that change.
Dictionary.com Example sentence: "Everyone effected by high-speed rail service knew they were near a train line..."
Those people were not created by the high-speed rail service. It had an effect on them. (Unless they, as a group, are defined by being near the train line, thus the concept of that group was created by being effected by the train... augh)
So you're saying anyone with an active Mage Armor spell is, for the duration, affected by the spell?
No, you are affected by it. It affects you. You are influenced or altered.
Effect is rarely used as a verb; it means to bring into being. To be "effected by" a spell, the spell would have to be responsible for your existence. You "effect change" in an organization; that means you are responsible for the existance of that change.
Dictionary.com Example sentence: "Everyone effected by high-speed rail service knew they were near a train line..."
Those people were not created by the high-speed rail service. It had an effect on them. (Unless they, as a group, are defined by being near the train line, thus the concept of that group was created by being effected by the train... augh)
So you're saying anyone with an active Mage Armor spell is, for the duration, affected by the spell?
i'm guessing those "example sentences" were harvested by a bot because about half of them are using 'effected' incorrectly.
|
|
I agree with pellinore - the example sentences on that part of the page are highly suspect, and conflict with the page's own definition of "effect" used as a verb.
verb (used with object):
to produce as an effect; bring about; accomplish; make happen: The new machines finally effected the transition to computerized accounting last spring.
Spellcraft or Perception folls from the wizard or the spell doesn't go exactly where he wants it.
Sounds like a decent way to handle it. And then use some variation of splash rules to figure out where it goes if the caster doesn't get it quite right.
To the problem of blindness being too powerful because it can shut down a spell caster, I disagree, because there are spells you could cast that don't rely as much on vision as Lightning Bolt. Also, Silence is a level 2 spell for clerics (if memory serves), and that spell is generally more effective as such. For one thing, you don't have to cast it on a person who then get's to make a saving throw, you can cast it on an arrow, or a coin, then shoot the arrow at the intended target or dump a bag full of similar coins on the floor. For another, Silence prevents the casting of all spells with verbal components, which is almost all spells period, and (I think) acts as a barrier against sonic attacks (e.g. even of someone tries to cast Shout at you from outside the Silenced area, the area stops the Shout at the border).
As for the "just roll a die and fudge it" idea, I'm trying to avoid that, or more accurately, I'm trying to do something like that which at least a few people find reasonable in order to lend some credibility to the idea that it wasn't just my ad hoc brainchild, but it does seem to be the way this is ultimately going to end up.
As for the "I say affect, you say effect, let's call the whole thing off" argument, I apologize if my vocabulary was incorrect, and if it wasn't, I apologize for the unnecessary apology. :)
Getting back to my original point, I still would like to hear more from the pros out there in terms of what your group does to handle the situation of a blinded spell caster trying to cast Lightning Bolt. It seems like I either have to disallow it entirely, for simplicity's sake alone, or else come up with some kind of really detailed scheme for handling it which is not in the book. Both options seem undesirable to me.
lightining bolt is fairly easy since it starts at the caster, just have him pick a direction and the bolt goes that way, hitting what ever happens to be in the way... since pathfinder doesn't have 'facing' rules (everybody is assumed to be moving around in their space and able to see in all directions and such) I think it would be reasonable to have the caster make some sort of perception check beforehand or else have become somewhat disoriented and had his aim be slightly off.
I’m ressurecting this thread
- what about a spell caster in a deeper darkness spell, or hungry darkness? If that spell caster is trying to dispel the spell, I would think he/she would need to move outside of it so they could target it, correct? I mean, they can’t target dispel without seeing or touch it the target, correct,?
Dispelling an area spell only requires you to name the spell affecting the area to "target" it. It's a bit weird, admittedly.