Here's a question due to confusing wording for the Metamagic Feat Bouncing Spell.
It states this in the description: Whenever a bouncing spell targeting a single creature has no effect on its intended target (whether due to spell resistance or a successful saving throw) you may, as a swift action, redirect it to target another eligible creature within range.
The description itself includes two examples - spell resistance or successful saving throw. The wording hints that those are the ONLY circumstances that would allow Bouncing Spell to redirect. That said...
1. Would Bouncing Spell work if you need to make an attack roll (ranged touch attack or combat maneuver check (Strangling Hair is an example of the latter) and the attempt fails (due to missing or not beating the combat defense rating in the case of grappling with Strangling Hair)?
The examples in the parenthesis could be considered the only circumstances... or just two of several examples. Thus my curiosity. (I know one of my players would gleefully use Strangling Hair and redirect it should it fail to work in the same round.)
2. Also... in the case of Strangling Hair, if the target later manages not to be grappled by the hair, does the Bouncing Hair redirect at that point? (Does the Metamagic Feat remain in effect for the duration of the spell?)
1. By RAW, no.
Regarding RAI, Immunities to certain effects, such as Hold Person not working on a creature immune to paralysis, would fall under a spell not having any effect on a creature as well, and would be equal grounds for Bouncing to occur.
If the creature isn't immune, the spell can certainly effect them, but if you miss with an attack, it would not affect them. That is, the spell could have worked, if you actually hit your target with the spell.
2. Unless we're discussing Chill Touch here, then once the Hair is used to grapple a target, the touch spell discharges, end of discussion. Additionally, Chill Touch could only be feasibly used with Bouncing if you use it to attack Undead creatures; you couldn't use it on spells that have a "[random save] partial," as there is still some effect being done.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
1. Would Bouncing Spell work if you need to make an attack roll
2. Does the Metamagic Feat remain in effect for the duration of the spell?)
1) This is looking for "Target: one {blah} creature" spells. Charm Person is one such spell (works). Enervation is not (doesn't work).
Expect table variance:
It should work on Charm Person if they are not a valid target, some GM may differ. They are right in their game. In my game it works for Charm Person on a polymorphed dragon (no effect = can swift to move).
Some GM may think of Effect: Ray spells as "target one target". I'd say they are wrong.
Strangling Hair is Target one creature, so I'd say that it works if you missed the Grapple. I expect others would not. In their game they are right.
2) If the spell works, and then they escape that doesn't mean it has "no effect". So you wouldn't be able to swift move it if they escaped the grapple.
Do you consider the parenthetical examples as being a complete listing or just to explain that merely passing a save isn't the only way a spell may have 'no effect'?
Would you also consider it to have 'no effect' if you:
Cast a charm person spell on an animal, like a dog that was maybe disguised as a human? Would you be told that it seemed to have no effect and let the caster use a swift-action to try a different target?What if you cast a poison spell on a creature immune to poison. Does it just have no effect, or does it still have an effect that just... doesn't affect them? Similar to a charm or controlling effect on a creature with protection from evil.
What if you target a dazzling, color, or gaze-based bouncing spell at a target and successfully strike them, but even though they are subject to it, they have their eyes closed and so don't even need to make a save?
1. Spells that have certain target thresholds can be tricky to run as a GM. Charm/Dominate spells are such subjects.
To me, target thresholds symbolize either one of two things; they either require the target to be of that in order for the spell to affect them, or they require the target to be of that type in order for the spell to even be castable. Either of these definitions would fit the bill for target specifics in terms of spells like Charm/Dominate, that call out for 1 humanoid, or 1 animal, or whatever.
The big question is, are those target limitations a limit of targets that can be affected, or a limit of targets who can be cast on? One of the most (in)famous D&D/Pathfinder tropes is using Magic Missiles to attack the Darkness; many would argue that by the rules, it's not possible, and others would argue that it is plausible, as he is attacking what could be a creature, but doesn't otherwise appear to be.
The same concept above would apply to your Charm/Dominate spells, and both have merits. In your example of the Dog disguised as a Human, if the spellcaster (as well as the rest of the party) failed their Perception checks to see through the Dog's opposed Disguise check, the PCs would believe the Dog is a valid target, cast the spell, and realize it didn't work, the same way a Dominated PC would treat his former allies as his enemies in regards to certain abilities. In short, yes, I would, but expect table variation.
2. If a creature is immune to a certain type of attack, the attack has no effect on that creature, so it would be grounds for Bouncing to occur. The same would be true for using a Charm/Dominate spell on a creature affected by a Protection from X spell.
3. Being blinded means you are not affected by sight-based abilities. For example, a creature that closes his eyes nullifies the benefits of Mirror Image. In that case, Mirror Images has no effect on a blind creature, because they are treated as being immune to sight-based effects.
@ James Risner: If the spell didn't connect (that is, if a spell requires an attack roll, and you miss the creature with that attack roll), then you have no clue if the spell would actually work or not; there's not enough dots to connect to create a definitive "It has no effect on this creature whatsoever".
Let's take Shocking Grasp, for example. We have a Magus with a unique scimitar with the Bouncing Metamagic 3/day applied to it, going up against 2 creatures adjacent to him. Both creatures are not immune to electricity, nor do they have any electricity resists, but have Spell Resistance; the Magus didn't roll too hot for the knowledge check, so he doesn't know this.
For Turn 1, the Magus uses Shocking Grasp via Spellstrike, moves up to the creatures, and makes the attack against Creature 1. The attack misses, and Shocking Grasp does not connect with the creature, meaning no spell resistance is rolled, and no Shocking Grasp damage, because the spell did not discharge, meaning the spell didn't affect the creature at all; so you have no clue whether the spell can actually work, because the spell didn't even discharge on the creature. Although you can rule "no effect," I don't think the intent is applicable to a missed attack, because you didn't affect the creature with the spell.
Now comes Turn 2, the Magus uses Spell Combat, making his Melee Attacks first, trying again on Creature 1. This time, the attack hits. He rolls Spell Resistance, and fails. The sword still deals damage, and the spell discharges, but has no effect on the creature via Spell Resistance. So as a Swift Action, he redirects the spell on the other creature. Now, I'm not sure if this redirection for a Touch Attack spell needs to reroll the touch attack on Creature 2, or if the spell automatically goes off, but for simplicity purposes, let's say he hits Creature 2. He bypasses Spell Resistance on Creature 2, and deals Shocking Grasp damage. And the turn continues.