My PCs were being relentlessly sneak attacked by a pair of Bogeymen. They have a ridiculous hide, and coupled with invisibility and ghost sound at will makes them exceedingly difficult to find.
At one point, the advanced familiar could see the invisible, and pointed out the square he was in.
Now for the rules contention: The cleric threw a Destruction spell at the square. Everyone claimed that, much like blind fighting, they don't need to see the target if they know its location.
I very much was sure that you had to see your target, but everyone was adamant, so I let it slide and research it later (to keep the whole game getting bogged down more than it already was), with the caveat that they get the same 50% miss chance as striking an invisible creature.
To me, this changes this kind of spell from target: creature, to target: 5 foot burst
So far as I can tell, you need to see or touch the target, and I find no provision for targeting a creature in such a way as my players claim.
Am I wrong?
If you are inflicting a single target spell, you have to make contact with your target itself. A 5 foot square defines an area where the targt could be, not the target itself.
I also understand that Destruction is a TOUCH spell, which means it's not ranged at all. So the procedure is you make a Perception chance to pinpoint the square the target is in, you then make your standard melee touch attack with a 50 percent miss chance. If you beat the miss chance, you make contact and resolve the spell as normal. If you don't you hold the charge and make another try the next round. If you have iterative attacks, you may get multiple chances to try.
If the spell requires you to select a target, you must have line of sight and line of effect to the target. As such, you can not target a creature you can not see with destruction.
If the spell has an Area of Effect, you try to target it to include the square the invisible creature is in to normal effect.
Same thing to select a target for something like Selective Channeling, you need to be able to see the target to exclude them from the effects of a channel.
PRD on Magic wrote:
Aiming a Spell
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.
If the target of a spell is yourself (the Target line of the spell description includes “You”), you do not receive a saving throw, and spell resistance does not apply. The saving throw and spell resistance lines are omitted from such spells.
Some spells restrict you to willing targets only. Declaring yourself as a willing target is something that can be done at any time (even if you're flat-footed or it isn't your turn). Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing, but a character who is conscious but immobile or helpless (such as one who is bound, cowering, grappling, paralyzed, pinned, or stunned) is not automatically willing.
Some spells allow you to redirect the effect to new targets or areas after you cast the spell. Redirecting a spell is a move action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
EDIT: And destruction is a close range spell, so you have to be fairly close and you have to be able to see the target.
Range on destruction is actually is 25ft + 5/lvl.
Sniggievert,
That's also what I found (and expected).
Different story if it was a ray spell... but I find no exceptions or provisions for what my players argued.
Lannister2112 wrote: Sniggievert,
That's also what I found (and expected).
Different story if it was a ray spell... but I find no exceptions or provisions for what my players argued.
Yeah, a spell like a ray counts like a weapon and you can shoot it at a square with the 50/50 miss chance.
Targeted spells don't get that benefit, as they don't have a to hit roll to miss in the first place.
It would work fine if it wasn't a targeted spell, like Fireball. But the fact that it is targeted means you have to actually see the target to affect it. Or, in this more specific case you need to make a ranged touch to bestow the effect. This requires locating the square and then making the attack with a 50% miss chance.
Edit: Nevermind, destruction just has a range, it is not a ranged touch attack. Since the target is invisible he simply cannot target him with destruction even if he knows what square he is in.
if the spell were an attack roll there would have been a 50/50 chance, but since this spell requires a definite target a square is not enough.
Claxon wrote: Edit: Nevermind, destruction just has a range, it is not a ranged touch attack. Since the target is invisible he simply cannot target him with destruction even if he knows what square he is in. Slight correction: If they can touch the target, they can still target them. But that requires a bit more than just knowing what square he's in.
The real question for me is why is the party, which has a Cleric capable of casting Destruction, having trouble with an invisible foe. Have they burned through all their various means of dealing with invisibility? Is there a rule misinterpretation going on? Other? Lannister appears to understand correctly how targeting works. The Bogeyman's invisibility is not natural invisibility, greater invisibility or constant (unless it's been modified by a creative GM). It's a SLA useable at will. One readied action then target and use Destruction (or any and all other attacks on the Bogeyman) on the now visible Bogeyman (who will remain visible until he gets to his next initiative and uses a standard action to use his SLA Invisibility to again become invisible. At will just means they have no limit on how often they can use the ability (other than however many rounds exist in a 24 hour period of time).
Sounds as if the party is either poorly prepared to deal with an invisible threat (which by 13th level or so should not be happening), has stuck around without withdrawing to rest and recoup far too long (i.e. overextended themselves) or is otherwise caught in a very messy and unusual tactical situation (involving terrain, Spring Attack, readied actions, etc., and/or some very coordinated attacks by their foes).
We're on book 5 of Reign of Winter, and the wizard and fighter were downed by the
That left the cleric, the rouge and the ranger (who's companion wolf was also out).
RoW is challenging for 4 players, and often too easy for 5... At this stage in the campaign, I've been playing the lower level encounters as tough as I can to keep them challenging, especially when we have a full crew. In this case being unprepared for the invisible meant rounds of fear attacks before they ever laid hands on one of them. When they did make contact, it was short work.
This sounds like a job for....A bag of flour!
Seriously, they should be able to handle invisible foes (especially at this point in their careers!)
And you are correct in that they need to be able to see, or at least reasonably discern the exact location of the creature to target it. Say, if they were grappling with the creature, I'd allow them to target it. Of course, that has it's own hardships...But in any case only having the knowledge of which square they are in is insufficient.
On an unrelated note, that's a cool online handle you've got there.
Thanks Galahad, the Rush fan. I've used it for quite a while here and there.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
