I put a lot of effort into writing well thought out and respectful responses to questions regarding whether hexes (and the larger issue of supernatural abilities, which hexes are) require line of sight, and nearly all of my posts were written with regards to hexes. To wipe out the entirety of them seems a bit extreme.
In order to keep this post on topic, my answer to the OP is no, unless the hex says you need to see the target, it does not necessarily require line of sight.
|
We know from the description of total concealment on page 197 of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook that "You can't attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square you think he occupies." Then it goes into the miss chance.
So, you say, that that scar hex errata cannot work?
For the assertions that scar hex can only work if the requirements of both Los and loe are met up to a mile away appear to me to be genuinely false. The restriction of the requirements that would place upon the hex would mean it would rarely be able to be used.
There is a hex that specifically calls out the need for los, this immediately tells me that not all hexes require Los to function.
For the assertions that scar hex can only work if the requirements of both Los and loe are met up to a mile away appear to me to be genuinely false. The restriction of the requirements that would place upon the hex would mean it would rarely be able to be used.
There is a hex that specifically calls out the need for los, this immediately tells me that not all hexes require Los to function.
That's how I see it. So as I have said a few times now, if the hex doesn't say it needs LoS, it doesn't need LoS.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
That's how I see it. So as I have said a few times now, if the hex doesn't say it needs LoS, it doesn't need LoS.
I've said several times, that unless it says it doesn't need LoS or LoE, then it needs LoS/LoE.
There is no direct rule that clarifies which way is the expected interpretation and each side (does and does not need LoS) are using different phrases to "prove" their points.
That's how I see it. So as I have said a few times now, if the hex doesn't say it needs LoS, it doesn't need LoS.I've said several times, that unless it says it doesn't need LoS or LoE, then it needs LoS/LoE.
There is no direct rule that clarifies which way is the expected interpretation and each side (does and does not need LoS) are using different phrases to "prove" their points.
For what reason would the hex evil I include the line of sight text if it already required line of sight?
I suggest opening a new thread if this debate is to continue. We've just had about 20 posts wiped for back and forth with off-topic discussion.
However, I recommend not doing that, because there has been, once again, a line drawn in the sand. This conversation has gone nowhere and will continue to go nowhere. I think the OP has enough information from this thread to decide for himself what he should do about hexes.
Supernatural abilities are magical abilities which are subject to magic section rules. The magic section rules state that line of sight is required for ray spells and ray spells only. The combat section of the book also agrees with this: ranged attack rolls require line of sight.
Line of effect, in the magic section, specifically states that when you target something with a spell (not with magic, or magical abilities, but specifically a spell) or when you attempt to create an effect in a space, you must have line of effect.
Supernatural abilities are not spells (they're not even spell-like), and if they are targeting an object or creature they are not creating an effect in a space. Therefore, if you target something with a supernatural ability, such as a witch's hex, you do not need line of sight (because the hex isn't a ray) nor do you need line of effect (because it isn't a spell nor is it creating an effect in a space).
More spells than just rays are subject to LoS and LoE. It was quoted earlier how burst effects require LoE.
The term spell is used for simplification.
But you are clearly adamant in your position, so I bid you a good day.
Developer
|
So, you say, that that scar hex errata cannot work?
We know from the description of total concealment on page 197 of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook that "You can't attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square you think he occupies." Then it goes into the miss chance.
Nope. It works fine. It may even mean Scar-augmented hexes don't need LOS or LOE.
It says " The witch can use her hexes on the scarred target at a range of up to 1 mile,"
Which is not the same as saying "Hexes used by the witch gain a range of 1 mile." If it said that, it would clearly mean you still need LOS and LOE, since you just have a range of 1 mile. Instead it seems to give blanket permission; you can use your hexes on the scarred target; and tells you how far away that works. That could be interpreted to be permission to bypass normal requirements, which would include LOS and LOE.
However, given how short range hexes are (30 feet for most offensive ones), I'd consider scar useful even if it does still require LOS and LOE. No, in many cases I can't have either of those out to a mile, but in many cases I can't get those out to 800 feet either which doesn't somehow mean that fireball's long range "doesn't work" for a 10th level spell caster.
Some days I can see Mount Rainier from near my office, and that's more than 40 miles away. Since I could conceivably scar a colossal dragon, I have no trouble believing their are circumstances when it could be flying, be a mile away, and I'd still have LOE and LOS.
So the existence and wording of scar are open to debate (and I don't have a firm opinion on that).
But neither interpretation has any impact on what the universal rules for cover and concealment say (independent of anything about spells) about being able to attack things you can't see or is on the other side of a fully blocking object, or the fact the general terms tells us supernatural abilities are attacks.
More spells than just rays are subject to LoS and LoE. It was quoted earlier how burst effects require LoE.
The term spell is used for simplification.
But you are clearly adamant in your position, so I bid you a good day.
You've misread what I wrote, or otherwise ignored it entirely. Rays are subject to LoS for targeting, and subject to LoE in order to hit. I don't disagree that burst effects require LoE, because, as I just said (and you ignored), when you create an effect in a space, you need LoE. I don't dispute these two points at all. In fact, I'm the one who brought that up.
The term "spells" is not used for simplification at any point, anywhere in the rules. When the game rules say something about spells or casting a spell, they are talking about the specific act of casting a spell. The rules for line of effect, which I have quoted several times, require that targeting an object with a spell you cast requires line of effect. The rules also state that creating an effect in a space (any type of emanation, from any source) requires line of effect.
Hexes are not spells. They do not create emanations. They target a creature or object based on the rules written in the text for the hex. Some hexes require line of sight. Others do not. None of them necessitate that the user has line of effect.
We also have this, from the common terms:
Spell: Spells can perform a wide variety of tasks, from harming enemies to bringing the dead back to life. Spells specify what they can target, what their effects are, and how they can be resisted or negated.
...
Supernatural Abilities (Su): Supernatural abilities are magical attacks, defenses, and qualities. These abilities can be always active or they can require a specific action to utilize. The supernatural ability's description includes information on how it is used and its effects.
Note that the bit about spells says that spells specify what they can target, what their effects are, and how they can be resisted, but leaves out how they are used. That is because the information for how all spells are used is outlined within the Magic section.
On the other hand, it says the information on how supernatural abilities are used is contained within the description for the ability.
I don't have line of sight, but I should be able to target them, right?
With a spell, you couldn't.
"You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target."So no casting Charm Person or Command or whatever just on the basis of knowing what square they're in, not even with a 50-50 miss chance.
As to whether you can do that with a hex, that's pretty much what this thread is about - whether hexes follow spell rules by default.
I still favor treating Supernatural abilities like spells except for the specified differences ("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"). Otherwise there are no rules for how you target people.
GM: There is a door at the end of the corridor.
Player: I use the Agony Hex on an enemy.
GM: What enemy?
Player: Any enemy within 60 feet.
GM: You can't see any enemies.
Player: Doesn't matter. There's no rule saying you have to see or be aware of an enemy to use a Supernatural ability on them. I'll just keep doing this every round as we explore. If I hear anyone screaming in pain, I'll know there was an enemy there.
|
Total Cover: If you don't have line of effect to your target (that is, you cannot draw any line from your square to your target's square without crossing a solid barrier), he is considered to have total cover from you. You can't make an attack against a target that has total cover.
That alone rule out any hex that speak of a target unless the hex specifically say that it don't require a Line of Effect.
Total Concealment: If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight, he is considered to have total concealment from you. You can't attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies. A successful attack into a square occupied by an enemy with total concealment has a 50% miss chance (instead of the normal 20% miss chance for an opponent with concealment).
Same thing, but for LoS. You either have an attack that can target a square or you can't use it.
Note how both piece of the rules don't speak of spells, but of attacks.
By the definition given by the rules, an "attack" is any effect that the target don't want to receive. Almost any hex fall under that category.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I know what square they are in due to tremorsense.
I don't have line of sight, but I should be able to target them, right?
You couldn't target them, but could the square and have to deal with the 50% miss chance.
Same deal with Blindsense. But Blindsight allows you to target them without the miss chance.
It's been asked a few times, and no one who is in support of supernatural abilities requiring line of sight has addressed it.
If all magical abilities that target something implicitly require line of sight due to some wording in the CRB section on Magic, then why do some supernatural abilities explicitly state that the user must be able to see the target, while others do not?
|
|
It's been asked a few times, and no one who is in support of supernatural abilities requiring line of sight has addressed it.
If all magical abilities that target something implicitly require line of sight due to some wording in the CRB section on Magic, then why do some supernatural abilities explicitly state that the user must be able to see the target, while others do not?
Because someone don't require LoS. Example a breth weapon that target an area (but it require LoE).
Because there are several different writers and someone think that repeating the obvious is useful, someone think that it is not necessary.Because there are several different writers and someone think that heex don't require LoS.
There are plenty of reasons.
It is very simple. the basic rule say that to attack someone you need LoS and LoE. And that is valid for all attacks. There are exceptions, but they require a explicit statement that the don't follow the basic rules. The hexes as a general category don't have that exception.
Telepathy is a supernatural ability. It can target any creature within the stated range as written for each creature who has the ability. By the logic being applied in this thread, telepathy requires line of sight and line of effect. However, there are examples all over Paizo's own adventure paths that violate this rule, such as when an NPC communicates back to its master from a different room and through walls, details about the PCs via telepathy.
If telepathy is a supernatural ability, and all supernatural abilities require line of effect and line of sight, then Paizo writers have been reading the rules wrong all along.
The alternative is that supernatural abilities do not always require line of sight or line of effect.
|
|
Telepathy is a supernatural ability. It can target any creature within the stated range as written for each creature who has the ability. By the logic being applied in this thread, telepathy requires line of sight and line of effect. However, there are examples all over Paizo's own adventure paths that violate this rule, such as when an NPC communicates back to its master from a different room and through walls, details about the PCs via telepathy.
If telepathy is a supernatural ability, and all supernatural abilities require line of effect and line of sight, then Paizo writers have been reading the rules wrong all along.
The alternative is that supernatural abilities do not always require line of sight or line of effect.
Telepathy is an attack?
It has been repeated ad nauseam in this thread that all supernatural abilities require line of sight and line of effect. At least one individual said specifically that telepathy requires line of sight.
As for your response to my previous post, rather than follow Occam's Razor and use the simplest logical explanation, you'd rather explain away the discrepancies between the different supernatural abilities as possibly being due to different writers?
|
|
No one said anything about an attack. It has been repeated ad nauseam in this thread that all supernatural abilities require line of sight and line of effect. At least one individual said specifically that telepathy requires line of sight.
You should read what I posted more carefully then, I said very clearly:
Note how both piece of the rules don't speak of spells, but of attacks.
By the definition given by the rules, an "attack" is any effect that the target don't want to receive. Almost any hex fall under that category.
You should read what I posted more carefully then, I say very clearly_
I wasn't even responding to your post when I brought up telepathy.
Nice edit, but you replied "No one said anything about an attack.", so yes, you were replying to my post.You should read what I posted more carefully then, I say very clearly_
I wasn't even responding to your post.
I didn't edit it out if disingenuous spite. When I said I was not responding to your post, I was referring to my post about telepathy. Prior to your involvement, I had not been discussing attacks. The conversation as a whole has been focused on supernatural abilities (and specifically, hexes), and whether they need LoS/LoE. Telepathy is a supernatural ability that apparently does not. Now please, stop deflecting the conversation from my actual arguments. Argumentum ad hominem won't get you anywhere.
|
|
My posts spoke of the limitations about attacks. You are saying that the hexes are free from that limitation or not?
If you are saying that only non attack hexes are free from that limitation probably there is no rule saying that they should follow the normal rules about targeting.
If you are saying that hexes that target unwilling targets (and so are attacks) are exempt from it you should prove that showing something that override explicitly the limitation that applies to all attack.
Lack of a statement saying that they are subject to the limit is no proof as there is a general rules that applies.