Wall of Force carves out that teleportation effects can pass through the barrier, so you can teleport across it just fine, but I'm not sure, per this interpretation, that you could target someone on the other side of the barrier in the first place per line of effect.
|
In the spirit of intellectual honesty, I presented the information to yet another friend. They expressed that 'physical effects' are the hinging words that can cause a wide range of interpretations with what can pass through a wall of force and also what line of effect passes through a wall o force.
In light of that, a lack of unanimous interpretation, I will apologize for my excessively firm stance and rude words.
Wall of Force carves out that teleportation effects can pass through the barrier, so you can teleport across it just fine, but I'm not sure, per this interpretation, that you could target someone on the other side of the barrier in the first place per line of effect.
Targetting requires a precise sense ie line of sight - not line of effect. So you are wrong.
If you want to split apart "effects" from "line of effect" then be my guest. I would note that there exists a definition of the word effects in the game. That definition is Anything you do in the game has an effect. So I am going to go out on a limb and say such a reading is flat wrong. Wall of Force's exception for Teleportation effects applies to all the effects of the spell including the Line of Effect needed to cast it. While you are reading that check out the sections on Line of Effect and Line of Sight - yes different sections.
But really I don't want to revisit the attack, Attack, attack roll, type of rules situation unless it is forced on me. Neither should you.
In the spirit of intellectual honesty, I presented the information to yet another friend. They expressed that 'physical effects' are the hinging words that can cause a wide range of interpretations with what can pass through a wall of force and also what line of effect passes through a wall o force.
In light of that, a lack of unanimous interpretation, I will apologize for my excessively firm stance and rude words.
I also do fully accept that the term physical effects is used in multiple different ways in PF2 and in general English. So there is ample room for the GM to interpret and expand the scope of what can get through a wall of force.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the spirit of intellectual honesty, I presented the information to yet another friend. They expressed that 'physical effects' are the hinging words that can cause a wide range of interpretations with what can pass through a wall of force and also what line of effect passes through a wall o force.
In light of that, a lack of unanimous interpretation, I will apologize for my excessively firm stance and rude words.
I still don't think there was any intention by the paizo designers to change what a wall of force is and what it does does such as allowing energy to pass through it such as breath weapons and energy spells while keeping out only physical damage.
Effects is not damage. Physical effects encompass energy in the physical world.
I could see some kind of argument for positive and negative energy since it is drawn from other planes. But I'm going to stick with adjudicating a wall of force the way it has always been done seeing the wall as a wall made of force. Force blocks energy and anything in the physical world and line of effect.
Are you then accepting the interpretation to ignore line of effect for targetting? O_o It was one of the starting points for conversation - to remove impossibility of casting through glass (and WoF).
Targetting requires a precise sense ie line of sight - not line of effect. So you are wrong.
No. That's not it at all.
Line of Effect and Targetting are different requirements. Both are required, depending on what spell you are talking about.
|
I think the core issue about ‘target’ is that we have primary targets and secondary targets in some cases.
Weird behaviour like casting around corners, relaxation of rules can result.
So what are primary and secondary targets - and no - these terms are not used by Paizo.
Take Area of Effect Spells. Example Fireball. The primary target is the center of the blast. The secondary targets are everyone in blast radius.
You need Line if effect for the primary target. You then draw multiple lines in all directions of the primary target and hit everyone in that blast.
It is 2-step and as side effect you ‘can cast around corners‘ if you cast at the middle of a junction down a corridor. Monsters hiding in the side corridor - out of sight, out of the primary line of effect (caster to center of burst) are still hit.
Now take teleport: The primary target is the creature to teleport. You still need line of effect for the primary target. The secondary target is where you teleport the target to. For that targeting is relaxed and most teleport spells allow any secondary target you can see.
You can see through a Wall of Force - so the secondary target can be on the other side. The primary still need line of effect - but we often ignore it as in most cases it is the caster.
I even wrote why secondary targeting is relaxed. In 1e secondary targets could even be inside a wall aka I teleport 50 feet North and don’t know/see what is there.
In every single case Teleport Spells i checked do tell explicitly where you can teleport to - invoking specific overrules general and sight overcoming line of effect for the secondary !! target.
Swap Teleport Spells are a little bit iffy. My guess is that Paizo writers didn’t really distinguish between primary and secondary - in this case you have a pair of targets which are primary and secondary targets at the same time. So give Paizo writers a little bit leeway if these might not be written bulletproof.
I hope this explanation makes sense. I use primary and secondary target as I miss a better nomenclature and as both are colloquial ‚targets‘ but need to be treated differently.
Line of Effect and Targetting are different requirements. Both are required, depending on what spell you are talking about.They aren't different, targetting includes 'line of effect'. As written, targetting requires both 'line of effect' and 'line of sight'. For all spells with specific 'targets', not just some.
No targeting normally requires line of effect. It is not quite the same.
Assuming normal conditions I can target someone on the other side of a Wall of Force with my Telekinetic Projectile, it just won't hit them as there is no Line of Effect.
Click the link => Read it please, the sections on Effects, Targets, Line of Effect and Line of Sight. <=
Targeting normally requires you to be able to percieve the target with a precise sense. Affecting a target requires a unblocked Line of Effect.
There are all sorts of qualifications here because there are spells with exceptions. But this is not unclear.
Take Area of Effect Spells. Example Fireball. The primary target is the center of the blast. The secondary targets are everyone in blast radius.
Only points of origins of area spells are not 'targets'. Check it, they are in different parts of text and not mentioned in Targets sections. That is important because this allows to cast area spells where you can't see.
Also I see no need for additional terminology: creatures in areas are not 'targets', they are 'affected' creatures (same for objects). That's why 'casting around corners' happens. Again, check areas' descriptions, the authors are rather accurate here.
Unless, of course, a spell has both Area and Targets sections. Then targets should satisfy both requirements.
I agree what Thod has just said using the word targeting again in a different context is not helpful. The rules are not hard.
The rules require that:
a) You need to be able to see (or other precise sense) a target to select it.
b) You need to be able to trace an unblocked straight path to the target in order for the spell to affect it.
c) If the spell has an area then instead you have to trace from the caster to the center of the area, then again from the area to the creature.
Done, walk away, nothing more to say here...
|
|
Thank you for correcting my terminology.
I used the word target because that was my impression how some here used it and got mixed up.
Hope the bit below is more precise
Teleport:
The person you teleport is the target and the only target
The person teleported to x is then the effect? As such x is not a target. x therefore does not have to obey the targeting rules but is described in each teleport spell what is/isn't allowed for x (in most cases you have to see x).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OK. I am seeing three different possible interpretations of the spell targeting rules. All three are actually viable and make logical sense. I'm going to see if I can formalize them.
Premises: Things that we should hopefully all agree on.
1) Any particular Line of Effect has an effect type attached to it. For example Scorching Ray has a Line of Effect(fire). Haunting Hymn has Line of Effect(sonic). An arrow fired from a bow has Line of Effect(physical projectile).
2) Both the Line of Effect and Spell Target rules are necessary.
3) The Line of Effect and Spell Target rules are not contradictory.
Possible Interpretations:
metaphysical magic line of effect
In this ruling, spell targeting and spell line of effect are the same thing. The type of the Line of Effect needed is Line of Effect(magical), which is a physical effect. There is some metaphysical magical force that a spellcaster manipulates in order to cause magical effects to happen. When those effects happen at range, a solid barrier can prevent the magical targeting effect from happening.
This ruling will cause targeting to fail even if the spell itself would be able to be cast to that location. Example: Unexpected Transposition. You would not be able to target an enemy on the other side of a Wall of Force even though the teleportation effect would not be blocked.
dual targeting
Line of Effect and Spell Target rules are completely separate. They are referencing two completely different things and both are needed in order for a spell to happen.
Spell Targeting needs a Line of Effect(precise sense).
You additionally need a Line of Effect to the target of the spell specific to the type of spell being cast. Scorching Ray, Produce Flame, and Fireball would all need a Line of Effect(fire) to the target. Unexpected Transposition would need Line of Effect(teleportation).
In this ruling, you can always target a spell to anything you can see. You may not be able to affect the target though. It depends on what is blocking the Line of Effect and what type that Line of Effect is. Example: Wall of Force would block Fireball being cast to the opposite side of the wall. You could target the burst origin point because you can see it, but you don't have the Line of Effect(fire) that is needed to reach that point and create the effect there. Another example: Unexpected Transposition targeting an enemy across the Wall of Force would work. You can target the enemy because you can see it, and the Line of Effect(teleportation) that the spell needs is not being blocked.
visual targeting only
In this ruling, Line of Effect and Spell Targeting are the same thing again. Unlike the metaphysical magical targeting though, targeting a spell is always a Line of Effect(precise sense) only. A spell specific Line of Effect type is only needed for Line of Effect that the spell itself is creating.
The Line of Effect rule for spells says that you need a Line of Effect to the target of your spell, but it doesn't specify the type. The Spell Targeting rule clarifies that for targeting a spell, the Line of Effect type needed is Line of Effect(precise sense).
Some examples:
Scorching Ray would need Line of Effect(precise sense) to the target in order to target the spell. It would also need Line of Effect(fire) to the target because the spell itself creates that fire effect going from the caster to the target.
Fireball would only need Line of Effect(precise sense) to the target origin point. It would need Line of Effect(fire) only from that origin point to the creatures in the burst area.
Closer, but I disagree.
Point 1). Everything can have an Effect Type. So I don't see why you have to call out that Line of Effect has an Effect Type.
2) and 3) are fine
I don't see that any of your interpretations are needed. Why are you trying to interpret such simple rules? But if I have to select then the second. Line of Effect and Spell Target rules are completely separate. They are referencing two completely different things and both are needed in order for a spell to happen.
However you go on to talk about things in a way that completely ignores this statement. You don't need to go back to Line of Effect when you are talking about Targeting. You just need to be able to percieve it with a precise sense. With normal sight in normal circumstances it is the same. But in this game there are some obvious situations when that is not true: you can target a creature through a solid wall if you are using tremorsense and are both in contact with a connected solid surface, you can target someone with normal sight through an invisible barrier like a clear glass window/wall of force.
Being able to affect them is of course relevant to using the spell but not to targeting.
Great. So we are at least in the same book even if not on the same page.
Closer, but I disagree.
Point 1). Everything can have an Effect Type. So I don't see why you have to call out that Line of Effect has an Effect Type.
If I refine my logic a bit, I think that this is actually how that first ruling comes into existence. Deciding that a Line of Effect is a Line of Effect is a Line of Effect - there are not different types of Line of Effect. You could actually determine if you have Line of Effect before you even know what effect you are trying to create.
You don't need to go back to Line of Effect when you are talking about Targeting. You just need to be able to percieve it with a precise sense. With normal sight in normal circumstances it is the same.
Generally Line of Effect(visual) is pretty redundant with Line of Sight. The reason I would stick to using the Line of Effect wording is because describing the requirement as 'be able to perceive it with a precise sense' opens the door to things like casting a spell to a location that you can only see because of Clairvoyance or targeting something using your familiar's senses. (Clairvoyance, then Dimension Door for example) Requiring a direct visual line of effect explicitly prevents that.
Which again, this is more of a preference thing about how I feel that the game should work. Ruling it the other way and allowing targeting using familiar's senses isn't really wrong.
You don't need to go back to Line of Effect when you are talking about Targeting. You just need to be able to percieve it with a precise sense. With normal sight in normal circumstances it is the same.Generally Line of Effect(visual) is pretty redundant with Line of Sight. The reason I would stick to using the Line of Effect wording is because describing the requirement as 'be able to perceive it with a precise sense' opens the door to things like casting a spell to a location that you can only see because of Clairvoyance or targeting something using your familiar's senses. (Clairvoyance, then Dimension Door for example) Requiring a direct visual line of effect explicitly prevents that.
Which again, this is more of a preference thing about how I feel that the game should work. Ruling it the other way and allowing targeting using familiar's senses isn't really wrong.
Yeah generally quite happy to allow targetting through remote sensing
Beastmasters Trance,a familiar or
Clairvoyance
The line of effect rules are still relevant and the effect comes from the casters normal body. So there are some pretty obvious limits. I can't see anything in the rules that would actually stop it.