Crimeo wrote: The corner is the center of the pattern you use to determine effected squares. But the light is still coming from the touched part of her robes, which must always be in one identifiable square. How sure of that are you?
Cause all I did was link something made by Paizo. :D If you have something that contradicts it, by all means share.
I just realized that this is LITERALLY a corner case. ;)
Quote: If you have something that contradicts it, by all means share. I'm not contradicting it.
http://imgur.com/BQeiJOw <--this doesn't contradict what you posted, nor does it contradict the text of "Light" nor does it require any part of creature to be forced to be at a particular location in her square (which would have problematic implications for targeting/cover/etc.)
I made my image as if light were candle-strength, not torch, but you get the idea. The witch is easily pinpointed upper right, AND the light affects a pattern of squares centered around a corner.
Hey if that's how you do radius, all the more power to you.
i'm gonna stick to the source materials that Paizo put out.
You LITERALLY made up your own image to try an argue a rules point. Tsk tsk.
alexd1976 wrote: Would it be a jerk move to have the GM say this?
"You have decided to target that square with your Light spell. Roll to hit... AC 10? Okay, you have successfully lit up the ground in that square."
:D
In any case, Light doesn't really provide a mechanical benefit to attacking invisible people, unless I missed some text in the spell listing.
At best, you have a one in four chance of choosing the right square after the target is affected by it. One in eight if you account for three dimensions.
I mean, pick the corner of the square the 20 foot radius is centered on, right? :D
Or just ditch whatever item was lit up.
Er, no, I thought we've gone over this several times.
An invisible light source, be it a torch or a light spell, looks almost exactly like a visible light source. You can tell exactly where the light is coming from.
Imagine a torch, erase the wooden handle but keep the flame. That's what an invisible torch looks like, and you know exactly where it is.
For some odd reason, people are discounting the fact that you directly see the light emanating from the light source instead of only the background reflected light.
This has been described several times, by more than one person, so I'm not really sure why it keeps getting disregarded.
Quote: You LITERALLY made up your own image to try an argue a rules point. Tsk tsk. Uh what? My image shows more detail than the one you linked, but it is not contradictory with the one you linked. It shows for a 5 foot radius, 4 affected squares in a box, centered around a corner point.
On top of that, I added details that are required to satisfy the text of "Light" (that the light originates from the POINT TOUCHED, not a corner of a square). I wouldn't expect them to show those details in the other image, since that's a generic rules page that is not specific to the spell "Light" and thus may not have the same rules constraints.
Also, note that your interpretation becomes impossible if, for example, my target to touch was an inanimate wooden cup sitting in the CENTER of a square, versus a living creature's robes. Whereas my version takes it in stride. Unless you're suggesting that an inanimate cup dead center, with light cast on it, would suddenly sprout legs and walk to one of the 4 corners of its square?
...OR you can just apply exactly what it says and not make extra assumptions that aren't written, such as your extra, AFAIK unwritten assumption that "the light source must exist at the same point as the center of the squares pattern"
Crimeo wrote: Quote: You LITERALLY made up your own image to try an argue a rules point. Tsk tsk. Uh what? My image shows more detail than the one you linked, but it is not contradictory with the one you linked. It shows for a 5 foot radius, 4 affected squares in a box, centered around a corner point.
On top of that, I added details that are required to satisfy the text of "Light" (that the light originates from the POINT TOUCHED, not a corner of a square). I wouldn't expect them to show those details in the other image, since that's a generic rules page that is not specific to the spell "Light" and thus may not have the same rules constraints.
Also, note that your interpretation becomes impossible if, for example, my target to touch was an inanimate wooden cup sitting in the CENTER of a square, versus a living creature's robes. Whereas my version takes it in stride. Unless you're suggesting that an inanimate cup dead center, with light cast on it, would suddenly sprout legs and walk to one of the 4 corners of its square? Taking a page directly from YOUR playbook (adhering to RAW no matter how odd the outcome), yep, the light would in fact radiate from one of the corners of the square the light was in. I guess the caster would choose in this case.
Because the rules demonstrate how a radius effect works.
Your hand drawn image isn't source material.
If you don't use RAW (or in this case Rules As Depicted Visually), then you aren't playing by the rules.
Surely you can agree with the idea that the rules, as written, are how we are supposed to use them, right?
I mean, if we can do called shots on invisible opponents, it isn't too much of a stretch to allow the affected person to dictate how and where their own character moves, right?
Unless the affected target isn't ALLOWED to determine their own location and body positioning within their square.
Is that the point your are trying to make? That people don't get to choose where they move or how they position themselves?
Another way to look at it is this...
Do you attack in front of the light source? To the left of it? To the right?
Up?
Down?
Because that lightsource is radiating from the surface of something, not from the core of the touched creature.
Quote: Taking a page directly from YOUR playbook (adhering to RAW no matter how odd the outcome), yep, the light would in fact radiate from one of the corners of the square the light was in. I guess the caster would choose in this case. No, that's directly breaking written rules. Light very explicitly says that the light comes from the point touched. The point touched is the cup, lying in the center, and not anywhere near any of the four corners.
So that's explicitly wrong.
What does allow all rules to be followed at once, however, is if the light comes from the cup, but the PATTERN is centered on one of the four corners. The pattern of squares affected does not logically have to be the same location as where the light is originating. This is an extra, unnecessary assumption you are injecting into the situation, and it's causing you to break rules. So don't do that.
Quote: Because that lightsource is radiating from the surface of something, not from the core of the touched creature. It's radiating, just like the spell says, from the tiny, 2-3" diameter cup lying in the middle of the square, the point which I just touched. Let's say the rim of the cup, whatever, still not anywhere close to a grid corner.
Quote: yep, the light would in fact radiate from one of the corners of the square the light was in. I see nothing in RAW that requires this.
alexd1976 wrote: Another way to look at it is this...
Do you attack in front of the light source? To the left of it? To the right?
Up?
Down?
Because that lightsource is radiating from the surface of something, not from the core of the touched creature.
It pinpoints the square of the invisible person, no more no less. So you attack into the square with the standard 50% miss chance.
Crimeo wrote: Quote: Taking a page directly from YOUR playbook (adhering to RAW no matter how odd the outcome), yep, the light would in fact radiate from one of the corners of the square the light was in. I guess the caster would choose in this case. No, that's directly breaking written rules. Light very explicitly says that the light comes from the point touched. The point touched is the cup, lying in the center, and not anywhere near any of the four corners.
So that's explicitly wrong.
What does allow all rules to be followed at once, however, is if the light comes from the cup, but the PATTERN is centered on one of the four corners. The pattern of squares affected does not logically have to be the same location as where the light is originating. This is an extra, unnecessary assumption you are injecting into the situation, and it's causing you to break rules. So don't do that. Take it up with the designers of the game, I didn't make it that way.
No rules are being broken. Combat uses a grid map, so unless you deviate from rules, that's how it works.
This whole thread is bizarre though, I can't imagine any game where anyone would try to use Light this way...
I mean, why not just stab the person with a stick? Do a few points of damage, track the stick.
Or Acid Splash...
Why Light?
Quote: Take it up with the designers of the game, I didn't make it that way. Yes you did make it that way, because your conclusion is deriving purely from an assumption you added and which is not written anywhere -- your assumption that the center of the squares pattern of the template (those red dots on the page you linked) must be the same point as the radiation source of light. These do not have to be the same point. That's all from your mind, not Paizo's writing.
Quote: No rules are being broken. The Light spell says, " shedding normal light in a 20-foot radius from the point touched"
I did not touch a corner. I touched a cup rim in the middle of the square. So if you say the light radiates from a corner, you are explicitly violating the rules text of Light.
Quote: This whole thread is bizarre though, I can't imagine any game where anyone would try to use Light this way...
I mean, why not just stab the person with a stick? Do a few points of damage, track the stick.
Or Acid Splash...
Why Light?
Because a stick might not kill it, then it gets away. Light lets you track it down and land multiple hits until it's dead. If nobody thought to prepare a more useful spell like glitterdust, or brought any flour.
I literally posted a link to Paizo material, your response was a picture you drew.
I'm happy with what I have done here, and confident that my approach is closer to the rules than your self-produced pic.
Anyway, as many of these threads go these days, its just you and me going back and forth, so I'm gonna go play some Diablo instead.
Have a great night Crimeo, always a pleasure bickering with you. ;)
@bbangerter:
"In most cases, if you don't discharge a touch spell on the round you cast it, you can hold the charge (postpone the discharge of the spell) indefinitely. You can make touch attacks round after round until the spell is discharged."
I assume you can not hold the charge of Light and that you have to specify the target of it -which is impossible if you can not see it- when you cast it; I assume the contrary on Shocking Grasp.
Why?
First of all, as I just quoted 2 paragraph above it says: "In most cases" which means that some cases do not apply. And I think Light is one of those.
Everyone here that opposes to the idea that you can not cast Light into something that you can not see, has assumed that you can hold Light as a charge, but I think that is not right.
Why I think so? Firstly, the quoted paragraph talks about attacking, and there is nowhere in Light description that refers to any kind of attack, so my position on this matter is that not everything is a weapon if the contrary is not specified, and their position is everything might be a weapon if not specified. We've been told many times that we should try not to overstep the scopes of a spell, it's my believe that making an attack with Light falls into this case.
Secondly, if I had to assume that Light could be used as a potential weapon, I would have put a Saving Throw, or Spell Resistance, or both on it. Being not the case, makes me think that maybe Light was designed not as a weapon, but as a torch-utility spell.
Quote: I literally posted a link to Paizo material, your response was a picture you drew. If you have Paizo material that not only shows the squares affected, but ALSO the origin of the light radiation source when Light is cast on a point touched other than the corner of the square, by all means, post the official, more relevant image.
Until you do that, mine is the only one that addresses both pieces of relevant information (template of affected squares AND light radiation info), and it doesn't even contradict the one you posted, and which conforms to all written rules.
The Paizo page you posted doesn't break any rules (unlike your full personal description of what you think is going on), because the Paizo page is ONLY referring to squares affected, and is not commenting anywhere on that page about the origin of radiated light.
Quote: First of all, as I just quoted 2 paragraph above it says: "In most cases" which means that some cases do not apply. And I think Light is one of those. That's not how that works. They use the terms "most" or "usually" numerous times throughout the books, and it is always meant to mean "Always, except for specifically mentioned exceptions which you should keep an eye out for because there are one or two of them out there"
If Light doesn't say it's an exception, then it's part of the "Most"
*facepalm*
Dude, we've told you, and shown you the rules, several times now. The magic section clearly says that spells with range touch: (LIGHT) give you a free melee touch ATTACK when you cast it. It's there in black and white.
If you disagree, then quote the rules that you think support your argument instead of making all of these assumptions which are nothing more than trying to justify your belief that light 'shouldn't be used as the rules say it can be used.
Quote: ACID SPLASH
School conjuration (creation) [acid]; Level sorcerer/wizard 0
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Effect one missile of acid
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance no
You were saying...?
Btw, here is what they were talking about when they say most spells:
Quote: Some touch spells allow you to touch multiple targets as part of the spell. You can’t hold the charge of such a spell; you must touch all targets of the spell in the same round that you finish casting the spell. Note, this does not apply to the Light spell.
I think this is how I would run it as GM.
"You touch something slimy and come away with a bugger that your light spell illuminated"
All that rule arguments on a niche corner case that is unlikely to come up with in a game.
alexd1976 wrote: Another way to look at it is this...
Do you attack in front of the light source? To the left of it? To the right?
Up?
Down?
Because that lightsource is radiating from the surface of something, not from the core of the touched creature.
That is why still have a 50% miss chance.
alexd1976 wrote: This whole thread is bizarre though, I can't imagine any game where anyone would try to use Light this way...
I mean, why not just stab the person with a stick? Do a few points of damage, track the stick.
Or Acid Splash...
Why Light?
Because light stay on the targeted item, your stick don't.
RAW, If I have a net and are able to entangle the witch with it it work, as it stay with the witch even when she move (until she make her Escape check).
alexd1976 wrote: I literally posted a link to Paizo material, your response was a picture you drew.
I'm happy with what I have done here, and confident that my approach is closer to the rules than your self-produced pic.
Anyway, as many of these threads go these days, its just you and me going back and forth, so I'm gonna go play some Diablo instead.
Have a great night Crimeo, always a pleasure bickering with you. ;)
PRD wrote: Light
School evocation [light]; Level bard 0, cleric 0, druid 0, sorcerer/wizard 0
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, M/DF (a firefly)
Range touch
Target object touched
Duration 10 min./level
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance no
This spell causes a touched object to glow like a torch, shedding normal light in a 20-foot radius from the point touched, and increasing the light level for an additional 20 feet by one step, up to normal light (darkness becomes dim light, and dim light becomes normal light). In an area of normal or bright light, this spell has no effect. The effect is immobile, but it can be cast on a movable object.
You can only have one light spell active at any one time. If you cast this spell while another casting is still in effect, the previous casting is dispelled. If you make this spell permanent (through permanency or a similar effect), it does not count against this limit. Light can be used to counter or dispel any darkness spell of equal or lower spell level.
You linked the Area of Effect Templates. Where is the area of effect line the light spell? there isn't. It say "shedding normal light in a 20-foot radius from the point touched".
So how it work something emanating from a specific point? this FAQ can help (even if ti still speaking of how area spell work:
FAQ wrote:
Big creatures and centered effects: If a Large or larger creature has up an effect “centered on you,” does that mean that sometimes the emanation doesn’t even affect the creature’s entire space, let alone anything else?
Answer: No, when a creature uses an emanation or burst with the text “centered on you,” treat the creature’s entire space as the spell’s point of origin, and measure the spell’s area or effect from the edges of the creature’s space. For instance, an antimagic field cast by a great wyrm red dragon would extend 10 feet beyond her 30x30 foot space, for a total of a 50 foot diameter.
In this case the light is centered on the target object and emanate from the border of the object onward. Not from the corner of the square in which is the object.
Numarak wrote: @bbangerter:
"In most cases, if you don't discharge a touch spell on the round you cast it, you can hold the charge (postpone the discharge of the spell) indefinitely. You can make touch attacks round after round until the spell is discharged."
I assume you can not hold the charge of Light and that you have to specify the target of it -which is impossible if you can not see it- when you cast it; I assume the contrary on Shocking Grasp.
Why?
First of all, as I just quoted 2 paragraph above it says: "In most cases" which means that some cases do not apply. And I think Light is one of those.
Everyone here that opposes to the idea that you can not cast Light into something that you can not see, has assumed that you can hold Light as a charge, but I think that is not right.
Why I think so? Firstly, the quoted paragraph talks about attacking, and there is nowhere in Light description that refers to any kind of attack, so my position on this matter is that not everything is a weapon if the contrary is not specified, and their position is everything might be a weapon if not specified. We've been told many times that we should try not to overstep the scopes of a spell, it's my believe that making an attack with Light falls into this case.
Secondly, if I had to assume that Light could be used as a potential weapon, I would have put a Saving Throw, or Spell Resistance, or both on it. Being not the case, makes me think that maybe Light was designed not as a weapon, but as a torch-utility spell.
1) the rules say that all the spells cast on an unwilling target are an attack. There isn't a "attack spell" descriptor of any kind.
2) Plenty of spells don't have a Saving Throw or Spell Resistance check.
Generally those spell are those that require a successful to hit.
Just to give an example using a touch range cantrip:
PRD wrote:
Arcane Mark
School universal; Level sorcerer/wizard 0
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S
Range touch
Effect one personal rune or mark, all of which must fit within 1 sq. ft.
Duration permanent
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance no
Numarak wrote: @bbangerter:
"In most cases, if you don't discharge a touch spell on the round you cast it, you can hold the charge (postpone the discharge of the spell) indefinitely. You can make touch attacks round after round until the spell is discharged."
I assume you can not hold the charge of Light and that you have to specify the target of it -which is impossible if you can not see it- when you cast it; I assume the contrary on Shocking Grasp.
Why?
First of all, as I just quoted 2 paragraph above it says: "In most cases" which means that some cases do not apply. And I think Light is one of those.
Whether you can hold the charge of a light spell or not is a separate point (I won't bother addressing it as it has been covered by others in the thread). But it has nothing to do with making a free touch attack for casting a spell with a range of touch. Or would you prevent a player from using their free touch attack with shocking grasp on the turn they cast the spell because their intended target is not in line of sight?
Arcane mark is a good illustrative spell of how this works. Some argued that arcane mark could not be used with a magus spell combat and spellstrike to generate an extra weapon attack. The FAQ entry points this out as a valid use of the spell though with the magus. This sets a precedent for other spells that are not normally considered 'attack' spells, such as light.
@_Ozy_ I did quote what for me represented an important section. Seem you dismissed my quotation.
Here's another quote.
Combining Magic Effects
Spells or magical effects usually work as described, no matter how many other spells or magical effects happen to be operating in the same area or on the same recipient. Except in special cases, a spell does not affect the way another spell operates. Whenever a spell has a specific effect on other spells, the spell description explains that effect. Several other general rules apply when spells or magical effects operate in the same place:
Glitter Dust, Faerie Fire, See Invisibility, and some others have the effect of revealing an invisible creature. Light should not. Also, there is nothing in the Invisibility spell description, nor in the Light one that explains how those two interact, and having other spells that has the only purpose of revealing Invisible targets, I assume, yes, personally, I assume that Light was not made for that purpose, saying otherwise, on my opinion is stretching the rules over the limits.
Thus being said, I have to admit that Diego Rossi is usually right about his assertions, which makes me consider that your interpretation might be right.
alexd1976 wrote: This whole thread is bizarre though, I can't imagine any game where anyone would try to use Light this way...
I mean, why not just stab the person with a stick? Do a few points of damage, track the stick.
Or Acid Splash...
Why Light?
It's an attempt to use the Light cantrip as a Faerie Fire spell so you can track your enemy. Not a bad idea, even if it doesn't let you pinpoint their location within a square. (Still suffer the 50% miss penalty.)
Numarak wrote: @_Ozy_ I did quote what for me represented an important section. Seem you dismissed my quotation.
Here's another quote.
Combining Magic Effects
Spells or magical effects usually work as described, no matter how many other spells or magical effects happen to be operating in the same area or on the same recipient. Except in special cases, a spell does not affect the way another spell operates. Whenever a spell has a specific effect on other spells, the spell description explains that effect. Several other general rules apply when spells or magical effects operate in the same place:
Glitter Dust, Faerie Fire, See Invisibility, and some others have the effect of revealing an invisible creature. Light should not. Also, there is nothing in the Invisibility spell description, nor in the Light one that explains how those two interact, and having other spells that has the only purpose of revealing Invisible targets, I assume, yes, personally, I assume that Light was not made for that purpose, saying otherwise, on my opinion is stretching the rules over the limits.
Thus being said, I have to admit that Diego Rossi is usually right about his assertions, which makes me consider that your interpretation might be right.
I did dismiss your quotation, because it didn't actually apply to the light spell, whereas my quotation did exactly apply since we were talking about spells with range: touch.
Not only that, I actually provided evidence for why your quotation didn't apply by referring it to touch spells that explicitly don't carry a charge which (unlike light) were spells with multiple touch targets.
Additionally, there is specifically words in invisibility that tell you how light interacts with invisibility, I will quote them for you:
Quote: Light, however, never becomes invisible, although a source of light can become so (thus, the effect is that of a light with no visible source). We also have rules that explain how touch attacks interact with invisibility. In fact, there is nothing in the rules chain from casting the spell, to lighting up an invisible object that can't be understood by reading the rules that have been quoted.
The problem is that in your mind, as you have said over and over, you have a fixed idea that light should not be able to counter invisibility (which it of course does not counter the 50% miss chance like those other spells you list), thus you search and search for any words you can possible twist to support this preconceived notion. You find rules that have nothing to do with the light spell, you put arbitrary constraints on making touch attacks, instead of just accepting what the rules are telling you.
I really hope I don't have to tell you how bad of an idea it is to try and argue using this methodology.
Whereas I particularly don't care one way or the other if light can counter invisibility, I just evaluated the rules for both and came to a conclusion that neither pleases nor upsets me.
Finally, another generally poor thing to do is evaluate arguments based on who is making them instead of their actual content.
No, _Ozy_, you are wrong.
The problem in my mind, as I said several times in many different ways, although seems you are not able to comprehend it, is that you, or anyone by the case, is not able to TARGET something that can not see, and since Light is a targeted spell, you can not cast it on an invisible target. I'm not even considering if you could touch attack with it, because for me you are not able to *cast* it without a proper target.
The assumption that my problem is with, and I quote you "that light should not be able to counter invisibility" is also terrible off mark assertment, because this is not the cause of my problem but just a secondary effect.
And finally, after 228 posts, finding myself unable, because of my poor skills, to convince you, and you, being unable to convince me -also because of my poor capacity-, I've decided to move on and make use of my experience in the forum, which tell me that "statistically, when not enough evidence has been given to settle down an argumentation, Diego Rossi usually is more accurate than myself".
Maybe you do not keep the count of times people have convinced you about anything on this forum, because that number is 0. Good for you. Have a nice day.
Quote: you, or anyone by the case, is not able to TARGET something that can not see Total concealment rules say you can.
AND spell rules ALSO say you can target "if you can see it OR TOUCH IT"
So you've been told twice you can target it, and told zero times you can't... probably why ozy is "not comprehending" the notion that you can't.
Crimeo, Total Concealment are rules that explain how to handle attacks; not how to handle casting of spells. It is obvious that you have to be able to cast the spell before ever thinking of attacking it. I'm not saying that if you could cast it, you won't be able to use those rules -although I also moderately disagree with this-, what I've been saying the whole time is that your target is not elligible and the spell fizzles.
Secondly, when you quote something, put everything. The whole sentence, from period to period is as follows:
"You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target."
Can you explain me how can you *specifically* choose a target that you can not see? Because after completing the casting but before any attack, you have to choose *specifically* a target. So by the time you *attacked* you have had to said "the witch's hat", and not after attacking and touching it "I touched the hat!"
---
All in all, if you admit that you can target an invisble target, I have t assume that you can cast Fly, Resist Energy, Displacement and all the rest of touch spells on invisible targets, like:
You: I cast Fly on my Ally.
GM: ...but your ally is invisible and you can not see it!
You: does not matter, I cast it and start attacking around me til I find her.
This is not how I play. Maybe I'm wrong, but if I can not see a target of those spells, I have to chose an elligible target.
---
As I said, we are going circles. My last word, as it stands, is that I'm probably wrong about it, because nobody else is supporting my personal view, and some of you say the contrary. That's enough for me. I have nothing else to add from my side, and you, I believe, neither.
---
So let's assume that you are right and that there is a consensus that you can Cast Light into an invisible object that you can not see.
Quote: Can you explain me how can you *specifically* choose a target that you can not see? Smell, hearing, having seen her earlier and seen her disappear later, having been told by an ally who CAN see her and describes what she's wearing, having used detect magic and seen a hat-shaped aura earlier, seeing bootprints in the ground with soles thus knowing she's not barefoot and must have objects on her feet, etc. etc. use your imagination.
Numarak wrote: Crimeo, Total Concealment are rules that explain how to handle attacks; not how to handle casting of spells. It is obvious that you have to be able to cast the spell before ever thinking of attacking it. I'm not saying that if you could cast it, you won't be able to use those rules -although I also moderately disagree with this-, what I've been saying the whole time is that your target is not elligible and the spell fizzles. Completely and utterly wrong, in every way. The rules don't say this at all, you made this up.
I can cast a light spell with the intention to touch a rock, but if I accidentally touch something else after I cast the spell, that object receives the light spell.
How do I know this?
The light spell has range: touch, and under the magic rules which have already been quoted to you multiple times, it explains exactly how to handle range: touch spells, which is a free touch attack to apply the spell to the target, the target being whatever you successfully touch to discharge the spell.
Numarak wrote: All in all, if you admit that you can target an invisble target, I have t assume that you can cast Fly, Resist Energy, Displacement and all the rest of touch spells on invisible targets, like:
You: I cast Fly on my Ally.
GM: ...but your ally is invisible and you can not see it!
You: does not matter, I cast it and start attacking around me til I find her.
This is not how I play. Maybe I'm wrong, but if I can not see a target of those spells, I have to chose an elligible target.
Yes, you are wrong. Any touch spell that has a singular target holds a charge until it you successfully touch something, just like shocking grasp.
If you cast a shocking grasp, you don't have to specify the enemy, you hold the charge until you touch something.
You cast a fly spell. It's not range: personal, it's range touch. When people cast fly on themselves, they usually don't explicitly say that they touch themselves, yet that is how you actually apply the spell to yourself.
After the fly spell is cast, you hold the charge until you touch a valid target, which is a creature. It can be you, an ally, or even an opponent if you are so inclined. The magic rules say that you can automatically touch your ally, but if they are invisible, then they will have to somehow assist that touch by using an action of their own, otherwise you indeed get a miss chance if you try to touch them while you can't see them.
I think I see what your confusion is. You think that the target has to be specifically selected as part of the spell, that is incorrect.
Quote: LIGHT
School evocation [light]; Level bard 0, cleric 0, druid 0, sorcerer/wizard 0
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, M/DF (a firefly)
Range touch
Target object touched
Duration 10 min./level
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance no
Like all of the touch spells that you mention, the target is the actual creature or object that you touch. That is literally what defines the target of the spell. It is not chosen in any other way except by what you touch after the spell is cast.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
