I'd say yes, but if the spell requires an attack roll, there is a 50% miss chance.
But I can't back this up with any rules, just baseless opinions
Well, assuming you can't see the target, do you have line of sight/line of effect to it?
Line of effect, yes. Line of sight, no.
|
Of course, I'd balance this by requiring spellcraft checks to determine that any spell is being cast at all, especially if you're readying against a specific spell. A fighter might ready an action for "the caster moves his arms", but then the fighter is obligated to take the action even if the caster just decides to try to punch him.
There's no need to make new rules for this. Readying an action to interrupt a spell is an everyday occurrence (and yes, a bluff check would totally convince a fighter that a spell is being cast).
|
I don't think there is any actual rules regarding this, so it would definitely fall under GM's discretion. That being said, I think it depends on the spell.
For example, magic missile will always hit its target unless the target has total cover or total concealment. Since the caster is blinded, every target has total concealment, thus the spell would have no effect.
Generally speaking, I would think that any spell with a range of personal, or is an area spell that emanates from the caster would work normally. Something like lightning bolt, would work normally, though I might grant potential targets a 50% miss-chance roll since the caster doesn't have the ability to aim the spell properly. Spells that require the caster to make a touch attack or ranged touch attack would obviously grant the targets a miss-chance. Spells that require a designated center point away from the caster, I would require a 50% miss-chance to hit the target, and if it missed treat it as a thrown weapon that had missed.
YMMV.
A fighter might ready an action for "the caster moves his arms", but then the fighter is obligated to take the action even if the caster just decides to try to punch him.
Readied actions do not obligate you to follow through with the readied action when the triggering condition occurs. They are like AoO's in that sense, just because someone does an action that triggers an AoO, you are not required to take the AoO if you think a better opportunity will come along.
|
|
I don't think there is any actual rules regarding this, so it would definitely fall under GM's discretion. That being said, I think it depends on the spell.
For example, magic missile will always hit its target unless the target has total cover or total concealment. Since the caster is blinded, every target has total concealment, thus the spell would have no effect.
Generally speaking, I would think that any spell with a range of personal, or is an area spell that emanates from the caster would work normally. Something like lightning bolt, would work normally, though I might grant potential targets a 50% miss-chance roll since the caster doesn't have the ability to aim the spell properly. Spells that require the caster to make a touch attack or ranged touch attack would obviously grant the targets a miss-chance. Spells that require a designated center point away from the caster, I would require a 50% miss-chance to hit the target, and if it missed treat it as a thrown weapon that had missed.
YMMV.
I wouldn't dream of having it negatively affect personal/emanation or area spells. It's for targeted spells I'm curious about. Can a blind caster (or one in total darkness) even use them, in the rules?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rules specifically state that you cannot target something with a spell unless you can see it or touch it.
Relevant Text from the Magic Chapter of the Core Rulebook:
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.
|
|
The rules specifically state that you cannot target something with a spell unless you can see it or touch it.
Relevant Text from the Magic Chapter of the Core Rulebook:
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.
Well there we are! Excellent find, thank you. That's what I was looking for.
If the spell is targeted (i.e. Target: one creature, etc.)and has a range other than touch, then blinding the caster with a readied action will ruin the spell. The caster won't have any viable targets when the spell completes (unless he is grappled or in direct physical contact with a creature at time of casting).
If the spell is targeted and has a range of touch, the caster still gets his free melee touch attack as part of casting the spell. Any target would have total concealment.
If the spell has an area or effect instead of a target, he can cast the spell as normal. All he needs for this spell is line of effect, not line of sight. As a GM, I'd probably make the player get up from the table (or turn around away from the map) the instant he was blinded with a readied action, describe to me without looking at the map where he is placing the area or effect, and adjudicate accordingly.
If the spell has an area or effect but requires an attack roll, the creatures attacked would benefit from total concealment.
Recognizing that a caster is casting a spell calls for a spellcraft check, unless I'm mistaken.
Distracting Spellcasters: You can ready an attack against a spellcaster with the trigger “if she starts casting a spell.” If you damage the spellcaster, she may lose the spell she was trying to cast (as determined by her Spellcraft check result).
No spellcraft check required.
Sorry, I fail to see how this is a "new rule". Recognizing that a caster is casting a spell calls for a spellcraft check, unless I'm mistaken.Of course, I'd balance this by requiring spellcraft checks to determine that any spell is being cast at all, especially if you're readying against a specific spell. A fighter might ready an action for "the caster moves his arms", but then the fighter is obligated to take the action even if the caster just decides to try to punch him.There's no need to make new rules for this. Readying an action to interrupt a spell is an everyday occurrence (and yes, a bluff check would totally convince a fighter that a spell is being cast).
You can easily recognize when the spell is being cast, because you see brilliant glow energy in the hands of the Wizard. ;)
As other's have said, spellcraft is required to know what he is casting.
I would use common sense if things such as still and silent spell were used though...
One interpretation of RAW is that a still + silent spell with no material components(or eschew materials) would count as being invisible, and thus add +20 to all perception/spellcraft checks.
I would use common sense if things such as still and silent spell were used though...One interpretation of RAW is that a still + silent spell with no material components(or eschew materials) would count as being invisible, and thus add +20 to all perception/spellcraft checks.
That's too rash. It depends on the spell, at the very least.
I'm pretty confident anyone can recognize a Stilled-silent-material-schewed Wall of Fire or Blade Barrier or Summon Monster VII->fiendish Tyrannosaurus Rex, for example :P
If you mean *before* the spell is cast, that comes to GM interpretation. Nowhere in the rules it says magic itself is invisible, I think. "glowing energy" such as the one you see in Dr Strange is just as valid interpretation as "nothing seen at all" as you see in a Jedi trick. It depends on your GM
Personally, I like the glowing stuff.
I would use common sense if things such as still and silent spell were used though...One interpretation of RAW is that a still + silent spell with no material components(or eschew materials) would count as being invisible, and thus add +20 to all perception/spellcraft checks.
That's too rash. It depends on the spell, at the very least.
I'm pretty confident anyone can recognize a Stilled-silent-material-schewed Wall of Fire or Blade Barrier or Summon Monster VII->fiendish Tyrannosaurus Rex, for example :P
If you mean *before* the spell is cast, that comes to GM interpretation. Nowhere in the rules it says magic itself is invisible, I think. "glowing energy" such as the one you see in Dr Strange is just as valid interpretation as "nothing seen at all" as you see in a Jedi trick. It depends on your GM
Personally, I like the glowing stuff.
That is the extreme supported by RAW. A more reasonable middle ground would be adding a +5 circumstance modifier to the perception/spellcraft roll. I think there was a developer comment saying that adding to the difficulty of the roll was a reasonable judgement call to make.
Well, if a fighter can tell the difference between a mage casting a spell and a homeless guy gesticulating wildly and cursing at a bologna sandwich, there must be some sort of glowy energy or something... because otherwise, both things would probably look exactly the same to a non-magical fighter.
At least, that's how I picture it when the group casters say they're casting another fireball.
That's also assuming the gesturing is just moving the hands wildly. I'm pretty sure I can tell the difference between japanese magical gestures called Kuji and a regular guy gesticulating. Dr Strange gestures with his hands aren't easy to mistake with someone asking for a burger too. Even without glow.
I always imagine spellcasting myself as *any* of the animations you see in *any* videogame. Whatever the videogame is, it's ussually pretty descriptive.