Question 1: Can a person standing on shore cast Magic Missile into the water, hitting a creature completely submerged?
Question 2: Can a person standing on shore cast Magic Missile into dirty water with a film of algae/scum that blocks visuals, hitting a creature completely submerged?
aboyd wrote: Question 1: Can a person standing on shore cast Magic Missile into the water, hitting a creature completely submerged?
Question 2: Can a person standing on shore cast Magic Missile into dirty water with a film of algae/scum that blocks visuals, hitting a creature completely submerged?
No because the submerged creature has total cover.
aboyd wrote: Question 1: Can a person standing on shore cast Magic Missile into the water, hitting a creature completely submerged?
Question 2: Can a person standing on shore cast Magic Missile into dirty water with a film of algae/scum that blocks visuals, hitting a creature completely submerged?
Magic Missile doesn't require an attack roll... so that makes it trickier.
see Aiming a Spell
see Underwater Combat, Attacks from Land
A completely submerged creature has total cover against opponents on land unless those opponents have freedom of movement effects. Magical effects are unaffected except for those that require attack rolls (which are treated like any other effects) and fire effects.
The surface of a body of water blocks line of effect for any fire spell. If the caster has made the caster level check to make the fire spell usable underwater, the surface still blocks the spell’s line of effect.
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.
1) As the target has Total Cover, the caster is smart enough to know they can not be targeted.
A Know[arcana] roll DC10 would tell you that you need Freedom of Movement.
2) same as above plus overcoming the cover/obscurment from the murk.
From the aquatic terrain rules:
Quote: A completely submerged creature has total cover against opponents on land unless those opponents have freedom of movement effects. Magical effects are unaffected except for those that require attack rolls (which are treated like any other effects) and fire effects. Based upon this, my players have argued that total cover doesn't exist in this situation, as the rules say the spells are unaffected. With no cover, Magic Missile hits unerringly.
Yes? No? What does that rule I've quoted do for this issue? Is it a monkey wrench?
aboyd wrote: From the aquatic terrain rules:
Quote: A completely submerged creature has total cover against opponents on land unless those opponents have freedom of movement effects. Magical effects are unaffected except for those that require attack rolls (which are treated like any other effects) and fire effects. Based upon this, my players have argued that total cover doesn't exist in this situation, as the rules say the spells are unaffected. With no cover, Magic Missile hits unerringly.
Yes? No? What does that rule I've quoted do for this issue? Is it a monkey wrench?
Seconded. Magic Missile is unaffected by the transition between air and water.
As for your Question 2, are you saying the target has total concealment from the debris in the water? In which case, you cannot target with Magic Missile. Anything less than total concealment though, you can sneak a MM through. If you had something with total concealment and knew which square it was in, MM still can't target because it requires a target, but if you have an area spell (that isn't fire) you could drop it just fine.
My answer would still be no, I've made my ruling and I believe that Total Cover applies in this situation. If you are looking for further justification you could claim that the distortion of the light as it enters the water counts as total concealment. But in my view, that is weakening your position and opening an argument you don't need to have.
Having made my ruling, I would let the player select another course of action.
From the rules on targeting creatures with spells
Quote:
You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target.
Normally total cover prevents you from seeing a target. Water typically would not - unless the creature is very deep or the water is particularly murky. As such, the total cover granted by water would not prevent targeting creatures beneath its surface with a spell.
(Unless there is also a rule somewhere I'm forgetting that says creatures with total cover cannot be targeted by spells).
So for the OPs questions
1) Yes.
2) No, you cannot see the target below the scum/algea surface.
bbangerter wrote: (Unless there is also a rule somewhere I'm forgetting that says creatures with total cover cannot be targeted by spells). Kind of. The combat rules section on total cover says this:
Quote: You can’t make an attack against a target that has total cover. That seems pretty cut & dry, but then the aquatic rules section adds this:
Quote: A completely submerged creature has total cover against opponents on land unless those opponents have freedom of movement effects. Magical effects are unaffected except for those that require attack rolls (which are treated like any other effects) and fire effects. So something like a lightning bolt might shoot directly into the water, no attack roll, and seemingly ignore the total cover limitation. I don't know if that's right -- according to some answers so far it's not right, but maybe they hadn't put all these rule quotes together? Or maybe I'm missing something.
from a person standing next to the water (eye level = 65", 30" to water, index of refraction of water 1.33, using angles measured from normal to surface), yields that a divergence of 5ft(a square){opposite side to complementary angle to angle to normal in the water is 120"} happens at a linear distance of 29.9ft in the water, or at half (15ft) for an average divergence of 2.5ft. Thus a submerged creature in the 6th square from shore is visually in a different square when viewed from the shore.
anyway - the situation can easily be resolved by the caster sticking part of his person IN the water, thus the spell originates in the water and doesn't encounter that particular rule issue.
bbangerter wrote: (Unless there is also a rule somewhere I'm forgetting that says creatures with total cover cannot be targeted by spells). You must have a clear line of effect to any target that you cast a spell on or to any space in which you wish to create an effect. You must have a clear line of effect to the point of origin of any spell you cast. Total cover blocks LoE.
Attacks from Land: Characters swimming, floating, or treading water on the surface, or wading in water at least chest deep, have improved cover (+8 bonus to AC, +4 bonus on Reflex saves) from opponents on land. Land-bound opponents who have freedom of movement effects ignore this cover when making melee attacks against targets in the water. A completely submerged creature has total cover against opponents on land unless those opponents have freedom of movement effects. Magical effects are unaffected except for those that require attack rolls (which are treated like any other effects) and fire effects. Despite this, the aquatic combat rules are abundantly clear in this situation, Magic Missile would work. It's a magical effect, so it ignores the total cover from water by base, and it doesn't require an attack roll, nor is it a fire effect, and therefore it remains unaffected by the water.
Arguing that refraction would stop it is a terrible argument, as it works against displacement and mirror image as well.
Attacks from Land: Characters swimming, floating, or treading water on the surface, or wading in water at least chest deep, have improved cover (+8 bonus to AC, +4 bonus on Reflex saves) from opponents on land. Land-bound opponents who have freedom of movement effects ignore this cover when making melee attacks against targets in the water. A completely submerged creature has total cover against opponents on land unless those opponents have freedom of movement effects. Magical effects are unaffected except for those that require attack rolls (which are treated like any other effects) and fire effects.
The rules for attacking from land specifically call out that magical attacks are not affected by this unless they require an attack roll or are fire attacks. Magic Missile is a magical effect, and is not a fire effect, therefor is not affected by the water.
Total cover is defined as.
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.
The bolded sections from total cover are what the argument is about. Since the rules for underwater combat specifically state that magical effects are not affected by being underwater, that establishes that water (when it comes to magic) is not a solid barrier. Clear water does not prevent you from having a line of effect, so in the first case magic missile will work. On the other hand in the second case the murky water is blocking the target from being seen so would block a line of effect.
willuwontu wrote: ...
Arguing that refraction would stop it is a terrible argument, as it works against displacement and mirror image as well.
I just stated what a simplistic physics example tells us.
It's up to the GM to decide how that's going to impact their game as the system is far rougher than newtonian physics.
Displacement leaves them in their square.
Mirror Image creates images in the caster's square.
It's why I stated the average in the refraction, a clear analogy, and stated the mapping distance for displacement out of their actual square.
It's important for lightning bolt and others.
Magic Missile wrote: The missile strikes unerringly, even if the target is in melee combat, so long as it has less than total cover or total concealment. Specific parts of a creature can't be singled out. Objects are not damaged by the spell. As this is a narrow corner case the GM has to make a decision based on the rules and what he knows as sensible.
Azothath wrote: I just stated what a simplistic physics example tells us.
It's up to the GM to decide how that's going to impact their game as the system is far rougher than newtonian physics.
Sure, GMs can make houserules if they feel like it.
Magic Missile wrote: The missile strikes unerringly, even if the target is in melee combat, so long as it has less than total cover or total concealment. Specific parts of a creature can't be singled out. Objects are not damaged by the spell. As far as MM is concerned, an underwater target (barring situation 2 in the OP) doesn't have any concealment or cover as mentioned a dozen times already. This is how exceptions work...
Thank you all so much. I feel like I really have a grasp on this now. Much appreciated.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
