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.
Another possible reading: establishing a telepathic link requires line of sight, but once the link is established, it can be maintained without line of sight. After all, Pathfinder telepathy doesn't (AFAIK) allow you to automatically sense the presence of all creatures within 100 feet. So how can you establish a telepathic link with someone if you don't know they're there?
If (Su) abilities don't require line of sight, what do they require? Let's say I fall down a trapdoor and find myself in a pitch-black room. There are probably some creatures in the room; I can't see any of them. What do I need to do to target one with a Supernatural ability that doesn't require LoS? Make a perception check? Guess the square it's in?
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.
Another possible reading: establishing a telepathic link requires line of sight, but once the link is established, it can be maintained without line of sight. After all, Pathfinder telepathy doesn't (AFAIK) allow you to automatically sense the presence of all creatures within 100 feet. So how can you establish a telepathic link with someone if you don't know they're there?
If (Su) abilities don't require line of sight, what do they require? Let's say I fall down a trapdoor and find myself in a pitch-black room. There are probably some creatures in the room; I can't see any of them. What do I need to do to target one with a Supernatural ability that doesn't require LoS? Make a perception check? Guess the square it's in?
In some cases, there is already an established telepathic link. In other cases, NPCs contact other NPCs or PCs telepathically without having established any prior link.
As for the second scenario, I'm not in any way proposing that you should be able to automatically target anything even if you don't know it's there. It does not follow.
If you have awareness of a target, though, you should be able to target it with a hex that doesn't say "visible target."
An earlier example I gave is the Charm hex.
A witch can charm an animal or humanoid creature within 30 feet by beckoning and speaking soothing words.
Say you saw an enemy run around a corner and you know he's hiding there and had nowhere else to go because it's a dead end. Why couldn't you use the Charm hex, which entails "beckoning and speaking soothing words" to charm the target? If the target can hear your magically soothing words, I would allow that to work (along with the requisite Will save and so on).
Say you saw an enemy run around a corner and you know he's hiding there and had nowhere else to go because it's a dead end. Why couldn't you use the Charm hex, which entails "beckoning and speaking soothing words" to charm the target? If the target can hear your magically soothing words, I would allow that to work (along with the requisite Will save and so on).
That's fine. The ability specifically calls out how it targets, which is a case of specific>general.
Say you saw an enemy run around a corner and you know he's hiding there and had nowhere else to go because it's a dead end. Why couldn't you use the Charm hex, which entails "beckoning and speaking soothing words" to charm the target? If the target can hear your magically soothing words, I would allow that to work (along with the requisite Will save and so on).That's fine. The ability specifically calls out how it targets, which is a case of specific>general.
This has been my argument for hexes the entire time. Other hexes have similar wording: "one creature within 30 feet" and so on. Why do those need line of sight but Charm does not?
The witch can cause a creature within 30 feet to suffer grave misfortune for 1 round.
My point is, either it's incredibly hit or miss whether there is enough information in the supernatural ability to tell you how it targets, or it is implicit that they don't need line of sight/effect unless it says they do.
No, it's because it specifies that you need to beckon and speak soothing words. It's a very logical conclusion that if they can either see your beckoning or hear your words then they are effected.
I disagree. I say it is implicit that they do need LoS/LoE unless it says they don't. To rule otherwise leads to absurdity and madness, so I conclude that the rules cannot work that way.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
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?
You view the simplest as all Supernatural abilities are unrestricted in the way all other magical effects.
I view the simplest as they are.
We are both following Occam's Razor to the simplest logical explanation.
As for the writer issue, there are tons of examples in the past of adventure modules flat out being wrong on spells. I've seen adventures tell you to cast wall of force then cast spells on the PC's thru the wall. I've seen adventures use time stop incorrectly.
You haven't read many adventures if you can say "possibily being due to different writers" without knowing this is an issue.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
does still allow somebody to hex a person 50 miles away [b]as long as they can guess the correct square he's in
Which we still differ on whether or not this is RAW. Your RAW it works. My RAW it doesn't.
The reader of this thread should conclude whether or not it works via their RAW.
However, note that it does still allow somebody to hex a person 50 miles away [b]as long as they can guess the correct square he's in...[/b
True. It's also possible by theoretical physics for me to completely pass through a wall when I walk into it. The chances are so astronomically low that is has never happened in recorded history, but according to the laws governing our universe it is possible.
|
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.
Okay THIS works, finally, thank you. Not just somebody saying "of course it requires it! I'm neglecting to say why but of COURSE!" Actual citation here.
This must also be combined with the part of the rules that say "Any offensive combat action is an attack" for the full story, but yes hexes are attacks, and thus these quotes work.
However, note that it does still allow somebody to hex a person 50 miles away as long as they can guess the correct square he's in... (and pass a 50/50 miss chance roll) Kind of an important dangling issue, since it's pretty easy with some research ahead of time to know what square most people will be in between about the hours of midnight and 8am.
If you have LoS, LoE, the hex can target a square and not a person and the hex reach that far. Unless you planet is flat it is very difficult to get all the conditions.
|
|
If magic missile had range:infinite, then it would also be able to attack people 50 miles away if you guessed their square correctly, for example.What's your problem with this new claim then?
That you are totally wrong.
You can't target a square with magic missiles or any other spell that target a person or a object.You need a spell that can target a square, like the ray effect fo the ray spells or area effect spells.
|
|
True. It's also possible by theoretical physics for me to completely pass through a wall when I walk into it. The chances are so astronomically low that is has never happened in recorded history, but according to the laws governing our universe it is possible.In case it was not clear, I was implying that you recon the target's house, find what square their BED is in, and at a time when they normally sleep, guess they are in the square their bed is in.
Which is going to be like 80+% likely to be correct. I would not exactly call that "astronomically low". And it is quite relevant for gameplay.
That wall between you and the bed has something to say to you: "No LoE".
True. It's also possible by theoretical physics for me to completely pass through a wall when I walk into it. The chances are so astronomically low that is has never happened in recorded history, but according to the laws governing our universe it is possible.In case it was not clear, I was implying that you recon the target's house, find what square their BED is in, and at a time when they normally sleep, guess they are in the square their bed is in.
Which is going to be like 80+% likely to be correct. I would not exactly call that "astronomically low". And it is quite relevant for gameplay.
Sure, assuming you're targeting through an open window to have line of effect, except how are you targeting a "square" at that distance? Unless your character has an unprecedented ability to make the distinction between feet at a distance of several miles, you're probably not going to hit the square you want to. At that distance you would be lucky to hit the house.
Also, at a certain point, the curvature of the Earth would block line of effect.
If you try to cheese the rules to nuke somebody across the planet, you should expect to face some resistance.
It's turning into a flippant argument, because either way you don't have line of sight. You cannot see your target, which means they have total concealment, which means you cannot target them.
|
|
Crimeo, you aren't aware of a lot of rules.
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.
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).
If the spell has a target requirement you can't fulfill it.
You point your finger and determine the range (distance and height) at which the fireball is to burst. A glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body or solid barrier prior to attaining the prescribed range, blossoms into the fireball at that point. An early impact results in an early detonation. If you attempt to send the bead through a narrow passage, such as through an arrow slit, you must "hit" the opening with a ranged touch attack, or else the bead strikes the barrier and detonates prematurely.
That applies to very few spells, as it is relevant only for spells that send a physical object at some distance.
Most spell require you to target a creature or object and hit it unerringly if you can target it.
The limit is that you need to see someone to target him. "Notice a visible creature DC 0" Add range. at 1,000' the DC is 100, you can make that check even taking 20?
A square (if you are using a spell that can attack a square)? Maybe you get a +2 or +5 to your check for "favorable circumstances".
We get to the absurd point of RAW where we can't see the moon as it is too far away, about 1 light second so around 100,000,000' and a DC 10,000,000 check to see it, but you simply can't see a specific 5'x5' area at a distance of several miles with the naked eye.
So are you arguing that supernatural abilities are more similar to physical attacks than magical attacks?
Yep. By RAW you cannot see the moon. I strongly encourage everybody to house rule this at their tables. It is still RAW though.
Only to absurd rules lawyers who apply no common sense whatsoever. If you ask this question to every single dev, I am confident the overwhelming response would be "Hilarious, but no". I could throw physics at you to explain why that is so, but your only response would be "Citation?"
Of course physics allows you to see the moon. But you don't apply physics over RAW. you only apply physics when RAW doesn't cover something. And written rules do cover the situation already -- there is a very clear, specific DC modifier per 10 feet of distance, and there are clear, specific size categories with specific perception modifiers.
*Sigh* And this is why I don't like arguing with you Crimeo. I feel as if you twist the rules just for argument's sake, despite knowing that your entire argument is ridiculous. I post on the rules forums to help others get clarification on the rules, not to point out every little corner case and argue about the technicalities of them. I am here to apply my experience and knowledge to help others, not to rules lawyer ridiculous interpretations. I bid you a good day.
|
|
Most spell require you to target a creature or object and hit it unerringly if you can target it.
The limit is that you need to see someone to target him.By default general rules for spells, yes (no default rules seem to exist for supernatural abilities). But in either case, if the target has total concealment, at that point specific > general kicks in (or specific > nonexistent, in the case of supernatural abilities), and the rules for total concealment allow you to target their guessed square instead, and if correct and passing a 50% coin flip, hit them anyway.
Let's see what you are saying:
Crimeo: the rules about targeting something with total concealment are specific rules that trump the generic rules about targeting magic.There is only a tiny problem in your reasoning.
The rules about targeting magic are specific rules about targeting magic.
The rules about targeting something with total concealment are specific rules about targeting something with total concealment.
Both are specific rules, neither trump the other, you must fulfill both.
Most hexes have a specific target. If you can't target him/it you can't use the hex at all.
It is not possible to prove a negative. The one claiming a rule exists logically must be the one burdened with proving it.
Fair point.
Where does it say that supernatural abilities do not require LoS or LoE? Since that is your claim, you must be burdened with proving it.
Still waiting on the citation of where it says you can target somebody at any range without LoS or LoE.
Such is the flippancy of your argument. Rules must be read and understood in the context of reality.
But I am bowing out, as I can see no actual progress from any further discussion on this topic since we are getting nowhere.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"The rules say I can do X, so I can do X without restrictions (if I selectively ignore other parts of the rules)."
Not exactly the best argument there.
As a counterexample: Supernatural abilities do not heed the magic section of rules. Breath weapons are supernatural abilities, so Breath weapons do not have defined shapes, sizes, and can universally pass through walls because they do not need LoE. Breath weapons act like this because cones and lines are defined under "Aiming a spell" and that section does not apply to supernatural abilities, such as breath weapons.
Well, that broke down fast.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
And every time you say that, you will be incorrect.
According to you. But you are not god, on the development team, or any other authority who gets to tell others how to interpret the English language.
So you can continue to be belligerent or you can accept that you are not a dictator. Which is it?
And every time you say that, you will be incorrect.According to you. But you are not god, on the development team, or any other authority who gets to tell others how to interpret the English language.
So you can continue to be belligerent or you can accept that you are not a dictator. Which is it?
+1
Different GMs can interpret rules differently. There are dozens of cases where I will accept different ruling as RAW due to how language can be interpreted. That does not intrinsically mean that nobody is ever wrong on a ruling, but people can certainly have different interpretations and both be correct if they both used sound reading comprehension and logic.
There are targeting rules, your inability to recognize them show your lack of knowledge of the rules, not a flaw of the rules.Where? If so, you have not posted any. You posted this:
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.Which proves your point for spells but does say anything about supernatural abilities.
It is not possible to prove a negative. The one claiming a rule exists logically must be the one burdened with proving it.
Correct.
Which rule allows for hexes to work through walls, against targets you don't even know are there?
|
I don't need to, total concealment rules say I can target their square instead and have a 50% chance to hit them anyway.
Spell targeting rules override the Concealment targeting rule, because it is more specific.
You cast these spell 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.
You cannot magic missile someone if you can only target the square and not "specifically choose the target". You CAN Ray of <insert X> them though, because rays do not have a "Target" entry but a "Ray" effect. But magic missile hits unerringly, which should clue you into that you cannot target the square.
That is a far cry different than swinging a greatsword in an arc through a square giving 50% miss chance, or shooting a ray or arrow down the middle. Or swinging your hands around hoping to accidentally touch the person.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
spell targeting rules not only don't overrule but don't apply at all to things that aren't spells or like spells.
According to you.
Some read the rules to say that Spell-Like use all the rules of spells except the exceptions supplied and the Supernatural use all the rules of spells except the exceptions supplied also.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Those people are also incorrect
Report me.
I'm not the one continually saying others are wrong, I'm saying one person doesn't get to dictate interpretations.
They really should have locked this thread days ago. I kinda wish they would so I wouldn't have to keep checking it every few hours.
Some read the rules to say that Spell-Like use all the rules of spells except the exceptions supplied and the Supernatural use all the rules of spells except the exceptions supplied also.Those people are also incorrect, as they are for no as yet stated reason ignoring a whole section of the book (the glossary), other than something akin to "I feel like ignoring it".
I mean it's not like I'm reporting your posts or anything, you have the right to say it as much as you want. But it will continue to just be bizarre and wrong to think that you get to randomly ignore big chunks of rules books and claim it is somehow equally valid as including all the rules.
People have addressed the glossary, like myself. Mention of the glossary happened in the first two pages, though some portion of it did get axed with the removals.