Do ranged spells require you to see the target (by default)?

[Yqatuba]

I would guess no as otherwise a blind person couldn't cast 95 percent of spells. Also, do you need line of effect for non-projectile/ray spells (such as Holy Smite?) Or can you cast it on someone on the other side of a wall if you know they're there and in range?

[Sibelius Eos Owm]

You're in the wrong forum, I believe (already flagged), but my two cents is pretty much no with some special caveats. Note that this is speaking for 2e, since that edition has much more logical break down of senses, but you're right in the middle between forums and I'm not sure which you intended.

Any spell with an attack roll should function pretty much identically to targeting a ranged attack, that is, you have to pick what square to aim at, and if you happen to pick right or know that there is a creature you can't see there by other senses (namely hearing) you still have a 50-50 miss chance since you can't sense their precise location.

A 'targeted' spell works pretty much the same way, even if it's a little less intuitive, since we can't intuit how a spell locks onto a target as easily as the projectile-like scenario. Yes, this means that magic missile actually CAN have a 50-50 miss chance, as it only explicitly skips the 'attack roll' step, not the 'need to be able to detect creature to target it'... which is actually convenient since in 1e you could not use magic missile on any creature you could not clearly see.

The last main type of ranged spell are AoE and well... if there was any spell where it was obvious you could hit creatures you couldn't see, these are it. The only difficulty you might have is inability to map your environment and the resulting difficulty knowing whether your AoE spell is going to hit a wall or obstacle rather than continue to where you thought you were targeting it.

[Staffan Johansson]

In PF2, the limitation on targeted spells is: "The target must be within the spell’s range, and you must be able to see it (or otherwise perceive it with a precise sense) to target it normally. At the GM’s discretion, you can attempt to target a creature you can’t see, as described in Detecting Creatures on pages 465–467.", and more generally "You usually need an unobstructed path to the target of a spell, the origin point of an area, or the place where you create something with a spell. More information on line of effect can be found on page 457."

[Syri]

Staffan Johansson wrote:

In PF2, the limitation on targeted spells is: "The target must be within the spell’s range, and you must be able to see it (or otherwise perceive it with a precise sense) to target it normally. At the GM’s discretion, you can attempt to target a creature you can’t see, as described in Detecting Creatures on pages 465–467."

It sounds to me like this quote, Chapter 7 seems to be miswording an attempt to paraphrase the general rules from Chapter 9, which you referred to. As per page 457, you quoted that line of effect is the general requirement; the same page of the book says that only "some effects require you to have line of sight to your target"; whenever something has that specific requirement, it should specify. If something doesn't specify that it needs LoS, then it only needs LoE: Thus, the hidden condition says you can unconditionally target hidden creatures with a DC 11 flat check; the undetected condition is what tells you that targeting an undetected creature requires GM discretion on whether or not you can even attempt a flat check.

[Diego Valdez]

This thread has been moved to the rules forum.