| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What kind of spells can be cast while blind?
Ray or touch?
Charms and compulsions?
Area effect?
Self-Only
Burst?
None?
What kind of spells can be cast while blind?
Ray or touch?
Charms and compulsions?
Area effect?
Self-Only
Burst?
None?
Basically self-only or touch spells. Nearly all of the other ones require line of sight to a target or area. I would guess you could technically throw out burst spells, but being blind you'd have absolutely no idea how far to fire it to get exact results.
What kind of spells can be cast while blind?
Ray or touch?
Charms and compulsions?
Area effect?
Self-Only
Burst?
None?
Here's the relevant info:
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.
As long as you fulfill those requirements, you're good to go. If you can't touch them and you can't see them, you can't cast any item that targets a creature or object.
Another way to look at this question is: Which spells could you use against an invisible creature? Or while in a dark cave (w/o darkvision)?
Ray and touch? Yes
Other spells that have a specific target or targets? No
Area effect? Yes, if they do not require LOS to target the area.
Self-Only? Yes
Burst? Same as area effect spells.
If you make a touch attack while blinded, can you cast Bungle on somebody?
You would have to know where the target is (pinpointed), and if I remember right, that was a DC 40 perception check, if he is within 30' of you. In any case you suffer the 50% miss chance from total concealment, even if you manage to locate him.
But theoretically the answer is yes.
If you make a touch attack while blinded, can you cast Bungle on somebody?No, Bungle is a close range spell, it doesn't have a touch attack. As an individually targeted spell you cannot use it while blinded.
I don't see any restriction on that. Where does that rule come from? The only thing I see is that if you can see or touch a creature or object then you can target that creature or object.
You can't touch an enemy while you cast a normal spell. The only reason a touch range spell works is because you get the free attack and the held charge until you make contact.
I don't see any restriction on that. Where does that rule come from? The only thing I see is that if you can see or touch a creature or object then you can target that creature or object.If you make a touch attack while blinded, can you cast Bungle on somebody?No, Bungle is a close range spell, it doesn't have a touch attack. As an individually targeted spell you cannot use it while blinded.Individually targeted spells, such as Bungle or Haste, require line of sight. Knowing which square someone is in is not sufficient, you must be able to see them.
Area effects such as cones, cylinders, walls, bursts etc can be targeted either by seeing the place you want to place the spell of defining it.
The rules are under Aiming a Spell
I've read the rules you quoted. I see nothing that requires line of sight for individually targeted spells. The only mentions of the word "sight" on that page are under Rays (which require line of sight) and describing Line of Effect which it says "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."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
You can also chuck aoe's "100 feet north by north west thataway" and hope the fireball hits your opponents without hitting a wall.
|
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.
Dunno if this weighs in or not, but I found an interesting bit regarding wands:
Activation: Wands use the spell trigger activation method, so casting a spell from a wand is usually a standard action that doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity. (If the spell being cast has a longer casting time than 1 action, however, it takes that long to cast the spell from a wand.) To activate a wand, a character must hold it in hand (or whatever passes for a hand, for nonhumanoid creatures) and point it in the general direction of the target or area. A wand may be used while grappling or while swallowed whole.
Bold is mine. Reading this, it appears that wands only require being pointed "in the general direction of the target" rather than requiring the more exact target rules required by spells. Seems like knowing what square the target was in would qualify for this.
This line quote is found here. And is the same as found in my physical rulebook.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think a wand would circumvent the targeting requirements, it just means that you cant point the wand behind you so the person in front of you doesn't know they're being targeted.
|
|
I don't think a wand would circumvent the targeting requirements, it just means that you cant point the wand behind you so the person in front of you doesn't know they're being targeted.
Does sound reasonable. Still, RAW arguments, I think this wand one would come up. Anyway, topic is in casting spells, not using wands, so it's a bit off topic.
I don't think a wand would circumvent the targeting requirements, it just means that you cant point the wand behind you so the person in front of you doesn't know they're being targeted.Does sound reasonable. Still, RAW arguments, I think this wand one would come up. Anyway, topic is in casting spells, not using wands, so it's a bit off topic.
Raw that's how the wand is ACTIVATED. After that it still follows all of the rules of the spell.
|
|
Raw that's how the wand is ACTIVATED. After that it still follows all of the rules of the spell.I don't think a wand would circumvent the targeting requirements, it just means that you cant point the wand behind you so the person in front of you doesn't know they're being targeted.Does sound reasonable. Still, RAW arguments, I think this wand one would come up. Anyway, topic is in casting spells, not using wands, so it's a bit off topic.
Hmm...yeah, that works. Thanks for the clarity.
Yet another example of caster favouritism.
When blind you have to make a DC10 acrobatics check to move at full normal speed yet somehow casters can cast spells with somatic components while blind without a check or penalty.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yet another example of caster favouritism.
When blind you have to make a DC10 acrobatics check to move at full normal speed yet somehow casters can cast spells with somatic components while blind without a check or penalty.
#MartialLivesMatter
Yet another example of caster favouritism.
When blind you have to make a DC10 acrobatics check to move at full normal speed yet somehow casters can cast spells with somatic components while blind without a check or penalty.
Having to look at your hands while you make somatic components strikes as like having to move your lips while you read. I suppose some of the dimmer Sorcerers might have a problem, but I think Wizards will manage just fine.
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.
Cool - So we agree that you don't need to actually see the target if you can touch it?
Yet another example of caster favouritism.
When blind you have to make a DC10 acrobatics check to move at full normal speed yet somehow casters can cast spells with somatic components while blind without a check or penalty.
Blindfold yourself then run full speed through the room.
Then, blindfold yourself and see if you can touch your nose, your toes, and your ears.
Cool - So we agree that you don't need to actually see the target if you can touch it?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.
Yes. But you can't touch a (non-bound or paralyzed) enemy in combat without a free touch attack or an unarmed attack that would prevent you from casting a standard action spell. But I'd let you attempt an unarmed attack against a pinpointed enemy and if you beat the regular AC, miss chance, and survived the presumptive AoO I'd let you target it with a quickened spell.
Yes. But you can't touch a (non-bound or paralyzed) enemy in combat without a free touch attack or an unarmed attack that would prevent you from casting a standard action spell. But I'd let you attempt an unarmed attack against a pinpointed enemy and if you beat the regular AC, miss chance, and survived the presumptive AoO I'd let you target it with a quickened spell.Cool - So we agree that you don't need to actually see the target if you can touch it?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.
OH - but Rules Forum so the strict Rules As Written require that you CAN touch them but not that you DO touch them. :)
But I agree it's ridiculous.
A blinded creature can grope about to find unseen creatures. A character can make a touch attack with his hands or a weapon into two adjacent squares using a standard action. If an unseen target is in the designated square, there is a 50% miss chance on the touch attack. If successful, the groping character deals no damage but has pinpointed the unseen creature's current location. If the unseen creature moves, its location is once again unknown.
I think if you can attack with a weapon, then you can cast a spell as well. However, you must deal with AoO and with miss chances. The spell is still gone after, unless defensively cast and failed.
/cevah
If your character is blinded you need to look at the target section of his spells. If the spell requires him to pick any targets he is out of luck. Touch spells are the only exception, as those aren't technically casted on the target but into his hands (and the spell grants a first attempt to deliver it).
This means a spell like magic missle would be useless, because he couldn't declare any target for it. The "touch or see" sentence is meant to cover the different forms of delivery. As he can't deliver magic missles by touch, he needs to specify the targets based on vision.
Many offensive spells like acid splash don't list targets, because they simply create an orb or ray your character can use as part of the spell. The ray itself is a weaponlike effect and can be used to attack any square, hoping to hit the target.
Spells like fireball list an area but not creatures and can be used as normal. Haste lists creatures and can't be used.
Generally targeted spells are fine if they require an attack roll (the 50% miss chance applies of course) and area spells are fair game as well. Targeted spells without an attack roll can't be used unless they have personal range or can be casted with target "you".
If your character is blinded you need to look at the target section of his spells. If the spell requires him to pick any targets he is out of luck. Touch spells are the only exception, as those aren't technically casted on the target but into his hands (and the spell grants a first attempt to deliver it).
This means a spell like magic missle would be useless, because he couldn't declare any target for it. The "touch or see" sentence is meant to cover the different forms of delivery. As he can't deliver magic missles by touch, he needs to specify the targets based on vision.
I disagree with your interpretation of RAI. I see nothing at all that leads me to that conclusion.
That said, the RAW are quite clear and that's the basis for discussion in the rules forum. There's no requirement that you have to see a target to deliver a spell where you have to pick a target only that you can "touch or see" them.
I've been wondering about this myself. Recently in a game I was in some mist and wanted to use Blistering Invective.
School evocation [fire, language-dependent]; Level alchemist 2, bard 2, inquisitor 2
Components V, S
Casting Time 1 standard action
Range personal
Area 30-ft. radius
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw Reflex partial, see text; Spell Resistance special, see below
You unleash an insulting tirade so vicious and spiteful that enemies who hear it are physically scorched by your fury. When you cast this spell, make an Intimidate check to demoralize each enemy within 30 feet of you. Enemies that are demoralized this way take 1d10 points of fire damage and must succeed at a Reflex save or catch fire. Spell resistance can negate the fire damage caused by this spell, but does not protect the creature from the demoralizing effect.
The GM said I couldn't because I couldn't see the enemies, no line of sight. I let it go at the time, but I don't see how a spell based on being heard doesn't work if you can't see.
It completely works, you only need line of sight if you're targeting something. This is a personal spell that emanates out from you to affect the environment, no targeting needed.
It should be noted however that even using that interpretation it isn't trivial to touch someone while blinded. Touching an opponent would always be at least a standard action (with 50% miss no less), leaving you with only swift casts.
It should be noted however that even using that interpretation it isn't trivial to touch someone while blinded. Touching an opponent would always be at least a standard action (with 50% miss no less), leaving you with only swift casts.
Which is why I posted the rule above about:
A character can make a touch attack with his hands or a weapon into two adjacent squares using a standard action.Any spell with a touch range works with this rule directly.
A spell with a ranged touch attack might work just fine as well. As a GM, I would allow it.
@'Sani:
Your GM messed up. That spell has no line of sight at all. It does have line of effect, but mist does nothing to that.
/cevah
Yet another example of caster favouritism.
When blind you have to make a DC10 acrobatics check to move at full normal speed yet somehow casters can cast spells with somatic components while blind without a check or penalty.
Blindfold yourself then run full speed through the room.
Then, blindfold yourself and see if you can touch your nose, your toes, and your ears.
Somatic components are complicated enough that wearing armour can prevent you from casting the spell correctly. Yet casters can cast spells while blind without so much as a check?
The acrobatics roll for moving while blind is for anything over half move, that is just walking.
What about readying a standard to cast a spell at your opponent when he touches/hits you ?
The touch action is defined within the rules, so simple contact wouldn't qualify I'd say.
Somatic components are complicated enough that wearing armour can prevent you from casting the spell correctly. Yet casters can cast spells while blind without so much as a check?The acrobatics roll for moving while blind is for anything over half move, that is just walking.
The difference is that for moving you need to react to your enviroment. Spellcasting is basically muscle memory, just like someone with a little training can type on his keyboard without looking at it. Spellcasters have trained casting spells all their life, its natural for them.
What about readying a standard to cast a spell at your opponent when he touches/hits you ?The touch action is defined within the rules, so simple contact wouldn't qualify I'd say.
The difference is that for moving you need to react to your enviroment. Spellcasting is basically muscle memory, just like someone with a little training can type on his keyboard without looking at it. Spellcasters have trained casting spells all their life, its natural for them.
Somatic components are complicated enough that wearing armour can prevent you from casting the spell correctly. Yet casters can cast spells while blind without so much as a check?The acrobatics roll for moving while blind is for anything over half move, that is just walking.
Where in the rules is this supported? You are inventing "muscle memory" as an explanation for no apparent reason. But let's suppose this is true and muscle memory is an assumption made by the rules, why do casters get a free kick? Fighters have to invest in a feat to fight while blind with any competence, why don't casters need a feat to cast spells while blind?
I'm not sure we are on the same page here. You asked why there is no penality for blind casting in general and I gave one possible explanation. That doesn't mean the caster doesn't recieve all the penalities mentioned in this thread when targeting a spell comes into play.
Fighters also don't forget how to swing a sword while blinded. They could still do Perform(Swordplay) checks for example. Interacting with a target you don't see is the difficult part. The fighter has his 50% miss chance because he doesn't see what he is trying to hit. The caster has the same problem, only worse. Sure he could use area spells, but while he is blinded there is the serious risk of accidently hitting his allies.
So I'm not really sure what you are trying to say.