| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I checked the FAQ and can't find anything solid on this. If a witch had a blindfold on and was not able to see, could she still use a hex (other than cackle) like Evil Eye?
It depends on the hex. For Evil Eye you should consider the bolded part below.
Evil Eye (Su): The witch can cause doubt to creep into the mind of a foe within 30 feet that she can see. The target takes a –2 penalty on one of the following (witch's choice): AC, ability checks, attack rolls, saving throws, or skill checks. This hex lasts for a number of rounds equal to 3 + the witch's Intelligence modifier. A Will save reduces this to just 1 round. This is a mind-affecting effect. At 8th level the penalty increases to –4.
Of relevant note, if the effect requires an attack roll, you are still capable of designating a square that you believe the enemy may be in, then rolling your attack normally. If you chose the correct square, you suffer a 50% miss chance due to total concealment.
I am not sure how this rule interacts with targeted effects that don't require an attack roll, though.
Line of Sight is required to target a creature.
For targeted spells I believe you simply cannot use it, unless they have an attack roll.
For anything with an attack roll you have a 50% chance to successfully hit your target.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Line of Sight and Line of Effect is required.
Nothing in Scar hex removes these limitations.
Yes, some people assert that Scar'd targets no longer require line of effect or line of sight. I'd rule against them at my table, but they seem to passionately believe they are correct. I'm unsure who is correct, but I know how I'd adjudicate the rules at my table.
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.
While this isn't strictly establish for Supernatural, Spell Like, or other abilities there is a general primes which stands. If you are targeting someone or something, you must be able to see it to target it.
Line of Sight and Line of Effect is required.
Nothing in Scar hex removes these limitations.
What CREATED these requirements, such that they'd have to be removed?
I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't know where to look in the rules to follow up on this claim. Where would it establish that line of sight and effect are needed for such in general? Like in Su/Sp/Ex sections or something?
It's in the general magic rules (emphasis mine):
Line of Effect:"A line of effect is a straight, unblocked path that indicates what a spell can affect. A line of effect is canceled by a solid barrier. It's like line of sight for ranged weapons, except that it's not blocked by fog, darkness, and other factors that limit normal sight.
You must have a clear line of effect to any target that you cast a spell on or to any space in which you wish to create an effect. You must have a clear line of effect to the point of origin of any spell you cast."
Aiming a Spell:
"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."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Scar hex isn't a spell, so that rules text does not apply. Which you seem to have noticed, but yet for some reason ignored?
There need be either something that establishes this for (Su) abilities, or for "all attacks" or something. Otherwise by RAW it wouldn't require either line of sight or effect. I don't know if such a thing exists.
Well, the differences between ex, su, and sp abilities are called out in the glossary. Note that there is nothing about using different targeting rules: just SR, AoOs, and dispel/anti-magic fields. Most people take that to mean that these are the only differences among these types of abilities, and the already-established rules for range, targeting, etc. still apply.
If you honestly believe that the magic targeting rules don't apply to any su abilities, then you also have to assume that the definitions for "range" (personal/touch/close/medium/etc.) and "area" (cone/line/spread/burst/etc.) also do not apply. (Duration should be OK because rounds, minutes, etc. are all defined outside of the magic rules. EDIT: oh, except for "instantaneous" and "permanent" and "concentration". Never mind: you need new definitions for "duration", too.)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hexes don't have a "target" in their description.
Unless LoS is specified as part of the hex, it's not needed.
You can run, but you cannot hide.
There are even stranger things going on, like single creature hexes referencing spells with an area target, etc.
We have a hex that requires LoS (evil eye). For others, it's enough to know that the creature is there and within range.
Some hexes are even passive.
Scar and evil eye are pretty good examples, that if there is a requirement, it's listed. You need to touch somebody to scar him. You need to see him to give him the Evil Eye- unless he's scarred. If somebody is scarred, I can use every hex on him, if he is within a mile of me. In theory even hexes I could normally only use on myself. An if I have split hex, I can also target another creature with 30feet of the scarred, as long as I know it's there...
Because magic.
Hexes are pretty strange. Powerful yet limiting. Which makes them interesting. Cool. Frustrating.
For both sides (GM and players). This includes gms recommending to cheat when it comes to hexes ("my bad guy will always make the save").
It is more than a little disingenuous to say that targeting an individual isn't really targeting them. In aiming a spell you have only two choices - target or effect - and unless it specifically calls out that the general rules don't apply, they do.
And for the record supernatural abilities follow the rules for spells except where specifically called out differently. specifically:
A number of classes and creatures gain the use of special abilities, many of which function like spells.
...
Supernatural Abilities: These can't be disrupted in combat and generally don't provoke attacks of opportunity. They aren't subject to spell resistance, counterspells, or dispel magic, and don't function in antimagic areas.
Scar allows you to use hexes at a mile range. Having line of sight that far isn't reasonable so it seems that it it is intended to remove the line of sight requirement.
Witches can also use their familiars to deliver hexes too.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
This is not the first thread on this subject, and none of the previous threads succeeded in building a consensus.
Whether or not Scar ignores line of sight and line of effect has been discussed many many times.
Whether or not Supernatural effects use targeting has been discussed previously also.
And for the record supernatural abilities follow the rules for spells except where specifically called out differently.Your quote says "MANY OF WHICH act like spells" (not all) and then (Su) says "magical but NOT SPELL LIKE" (so apparently those aren't among the many). I.e. it doesn't lead to the conclusion you're drawing. And in fact it states the opposite directly, saying they are not spell-like.
When a rule says something like 'most of...' or 'many of...' (of which there are several) the exceptions must be specifically called out. If that is not how to read a rule then how are you to guess which are the exceptions?
Yes, line of sight is absolutely required. If you want to argue otherwise I'll set up a battle map with no enemies and ask you to point at what creature you're targetting.
Yes, line of sight is absolutely required. If you want to argue otherwise I'll set up a battle map with no enemies and ask you to point at what creature you're targetting.
[devil's advocate]The Witch could sit in another room and use clairaudience/clairvoyance to pinpoint the locations of the targets.[/devil's advocate]
First,a bit of intellectual honesty would be appreciated. Let me provide this "citations".
First quote from the Magic Chapter of the CRB
Special Abilities
A number of classes and creatures gain the use of special abilities, many of which function like spells.
So, all Special ability works as spells unless otherwise stated. Then, the full quote for Su ability (witch I want to add is still from the Magic chapter) is
Supernatural Abilities: These can't be disrupted in combat and generally don't provoke attacks of opportunity. They aren't subject to spell resistance, counterspells, or dispel magic, and don't function in antimagic areas.
As you can see this phantomatic "not spell-like" isn't even existing as claimed.
Thus, Su ability follow spell rules except for those specific distinction provided by that description, that states no exception for LOS nor LOA.
A number of classes and creatures gain the use of special abilities, many of which function like spells.So, all Special ability works as spells unless otherwise stated.
When a rule says something like 'most of...' or 'many of...' (of which there are several) the exceptions must be specifically called out. If that is not how to read a rule then how are you to guess which are the exceptions?
That line really doesn't suggest that at all. If, instead of "many of which function like spells", it said "all of which function like spells unless otherwise specified", then you'd be quite correct. But "many of which function like spells" only states that a significant number of special abilities function like spells, without giving any further guidance as to which those might be.
If your interpretation was correct, it would suggest that all natural abilitites function like spells in every way (since no differences are delineated). Do you believe that to be the case?
EDIT: natural abilty have some inconsistency in the rules, since they are underlined under special ability in the magic chapter but not in the glossary, and they also lack under the special ability table.
I do believe that their inclusion in the former chapter has been a mistake. Or, more likely, natural ability is simply a catch-all for anything that does not conform with the other special attacks category, and is not a category in itself.
It is impossible to write down all of the baseline assumptions in a game. For example, they have falling damage, but there is no rule to say that all items are affected by gravity as a default. This does not mean that Golarion is a Wile E. Coyote world where people don't notice that they are falling until somebody steps up to recite chapter and verse from the Book of Paizo.
Likewise, there are countless other unsaid assumptions. If they were written, the core book would still be being written and you couldn't afford to pay for it.
Since most everything in the world relies on line of sight and line of effect, the assumption is that not relying on this is an exception that needs to be explicitly called out.
Actually, if I'm not mistaken there are gravity rules in the planes descriptions :p
Anyway, I do agree with your point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, if I'm not mistaken there are gravity rules in the planes descriptions :p
Anyway, I do agree with your point.
I was waiting for you to say that. I've looked and I haven't found anything saying specifically that gravity makes you fall.
I was waiting for you to say that. I've looked and I haven't found anything saying specifically that gravity makes you fall.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was waiting for you to say that. I've looked and I haven't found anything saying specifically that gravity makes you fall.Seriously?
Hey, gravity is just a theory, and as we all know theories are not science.
Checkmate atheists.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was waiting for you to say that. I've looked and I haven't found anything saying specifically that gravity makes you fall.Seriously?Hey, gravity is just a theory, and as we all know theories are not science.
Checkmate atheists.
Curse you and your irrefutable logic, CampinCarl!
If no LOS is required, then I don't have to point, because neither I nor my character needs to see them... that's what no LOS would MEAN. So not being able to point wouldn't be an issue if I don't HAVE to point...
Yeah, that's kind of the point. You can't just hex and say "I hit the enemy!"
RAW is determined by the GMs, not by you or a committee.Neither is true. RAW is determined by what is written. GM interpretation at a given table is usually referred to as RIP (rules in play), and if there is nothing clear written, then there simply is no RAW at all for that issue.
All information is only useful in the context of our understood reality, so he's absolutely right that RAW is what is determined by us. To say anything else is to claim absolute knowledge.
~~~
The basic assumption for any ability that specifically targets creatures (like a hold person spell) as opposed to AoE abilities (like fireball) requires LOS unless said otherwise. If that's not true, then hexes can target creatures who are invisible with absolutely no penalty as long as you arbitrarily determine that you want to hit the invisible guy somewhere in the room.
Some clarifications are needed here. First of all, the only spells that need line of sight are spells where a ranged attack roll is made. All other spells need only line of effect. So, first things first -- IF hexes behave like spells, they do not need LoS, they need LoE.
Second, since we have an example of a Hex (Evil Eye) that specifically calls out the target needs to be within 30 feet and visible (in fact, this requirement is only in the flavor text... perhaps setting a terrible precedent), we can safely assume that if it is not called out, it is not needed.
A witch can charm an animal or humanoid creature within 30 feet by beckoning and speaking soothing words.
You don't even need line of effect for this one, just needs to be within 30 feet. You certainly don't need to see your enemy to charm them with soothing words, and you can know what you are targeting without seeing or even having line of effect. Unless you think blind people can't address specific individuals due to their inability to see them?
So no, hexes don't need LoS OR LoE unless it specifically says so. And I extend this logic to all Su and Ex abilities. They are not spells. Their rules are wholly contained within them.