| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is not unwelcome. This is certainly the place to bring up such things.
This isn't the first time that this topic has come up either. And in fact causes no small amount of ... spirited debate.
Yes, if you have Line of Effect, but not clear Line of Sight to your target, the Spell Target rules say that you may (or may not depending on GM) be able to target anyway but with the normal concealment/hidden penalties.
If you have Line of Sight, but not necessarily Line of Effect, that becomes a lot less clear. See this thread that discusses that topic fairly exhaustively.
Hey it was a good thread. I learnt stuff about the game from a troll.
Hah. LN Troll with Barrister background sounds like an interesting character for Kobold Catgirl's thread.
So, is it correct to say that 2e necessitates line of sight for all spells unless otherwise noted, as is stated on that page?
No. That page is about Targeting.
You need Line of Effect for all spells. Though some specific spells have wording that may change this.
Line of Sight (or some other precise sense) is normally a requirement for Targeting. But not all spells require targets. Many area based spells don't.
If that is the case, then Line of Effect and Line of Sight come into play in more granular cases?Like, maybe you have Line of Sight but not Line of effect if you have True Seeing to target someone, but that target happens to be behind a wall?
And you may have line of effect to someone with a stinking cloud, but you do not have Line of sight to that individual. Does that in any way make sense?
Yes there are circumstances when you can see (or otherwise perceive) a target but you don't have line of effect to them, because there is a barrier in the way which the GM rules blocks line of effect. Perhaps the gap is too small as you are looking through a fine grill, or there is something like a wall of force in the way, or you have precise tremorsense and can precisely target an enemy on the other side of a wall.
Likewise you might have line of effect to an enemy but you can't see it because of a cloud or darkness etc, so you can't target them.
Ok, I hear you. So unless a spell specifically says you need line of sight, all it necessitates is line of effect?
Yes.
Look at the spell and see what it is affecting. You need line of effect to that. Every spell affects something or it is not doing anything. If the effect is just on you then line of effect is trivial.
Likewise what does it target? You need line of sight to that. But many spells don't target anything.
If the cleric does not have line if effect because there's a wall in the way, they cannot use breath if life.
If the cleric cannot see the target, but knows where they are, they are Hidden to the cleric. That means the cleric could try to use Breath of Life, but must make a DC 11 flat check to target them, or the spell will fail.
Stinking Cloud, specifically, only makes the creatures inside Concealed, not Hidden, so the cleric would still have to make a flat check to target their ally in that case, but it is only DC 5.
To not be able to try to target the ally with Breath of Life, you'd need them to be Undetected (don't even know where to try to cast, not just unable to see them) or be Unaware of their presence (didn't even realize they're somewhere in this cave at all).
If it is unclear whether the way that you are perceiving the creature should be enough to be able to target them at all, a GM judgement call applies.
What if you try to cast a spell without knowing you do not Line of Effect?
For example, if there was an invisible wall you did not know about between you and the target when you tried to cast the spell. Do you simply lose the spell?
Well, considering that we haven't resolved the other questions...
I guess it depends on how antagonistic your GM is.
@Guntermench
That is how I am interpreting it as well under the assumption that Line of Effect is an additional requirement to Line of Sight.
So they would cast the spell, but no effect would occur.
The alternative interpretation, mentioned in that earlier thread, would result in the spell being cast and having potentially a limited effect, depending on the spell.
Just wanted to clarify one of the interpretations and what would happen to the spell slot, if there was any rules to cite about it, etc.
My understanding is that SOME spells require line of effect, as is exactly stated in the Line of Effect entry.
When creating an effect, you usually need an unblocked path to the target of a spell, the origin point of an effect’s area, or the place where you create something with a spell or other ability.
The 'usually' comes from how most of the spells interact.
For example:An arc of lightning leaps from one target to another. You deal electricity damage equal to 1d4 plus your spellcasting ability modifier.
The italicized portion demands Line of Effect.
Fireball, however, states:
A roaring blast of fire appears at a spot you designate
The blast simply appears there. It doesn't travel to the target, so there is no need for Line of Effect, only Line of Sight.
Only people within Line of Effect of the origin of the blast would be affected, though.
In an area effect, creatures or targets must have line of effect to the point of origin to be affected. If there’s no line of effect between the origin of the area and the target, the effect doesn’t apply to that target.
I have a question related to this, what about spells likes Wall of Fire? Do I need line of effect/sight for the whole 60ft wall to make it that long? Or do I only need line of effect/sight for the square in the grid where the wall starts?
This has come up plenty of times and I don't know how to deal with it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a question related to this, what about spells likes Wall of Fire? Do I need line of effect/sight for the whole 60ft wall to make it that long? Or do I only need line of effect/sight for the square in the grid where the wall starts?
This has come up plenty of times and I don't know how to deal with it.
Using my understanding, you would need Line of Sight for as much of the wall as you would like to create, however, Line of Sight is not restricted to vision.
As long as you can precisely sense the area (as described in Perception on page 464) and it is not blocked by a solid barrier (as described in Cover on pages 476–477), you have line of sight.
Cover applies only if your path to the target is partially blocked. If a creature is entirely behind a wall or the like, you don't have line of effect and typically can't target it at all.
...
Usually, the GM can quickly decide whether your target has cover. If you're uncertain or need to be more precise, draw a line from the center of your space to the center of the target's space. If that line passes through any terrain or object that would block the effect, the target has standard cover
...
Your GM might let you reduce or negate cover by leaning around a corner to shoot or the like. This usually takes an action to set up, and the GM might measure cover from an edge or corner of your space instead of your center.
For the bold portion of Cover, you could still target something with an imprecise sense, you just would not have Line of Effect and therefore you options would be very limited. Since you could only target it with an imprecise sense, you also would not have Line of Sight.
For example, if there’s a solid wall between the origin of a fireball and a creature that’s within the burst radius, the wall blocks the effect
So, if you were trying to summon a wall where there are trees in the way, for example, then you could not produce the effect in a square you could not precisely sense and the spell would not create an effect where the tree is, instantaneously. Since the spell has a duration (unlike fireball), the spell's effect would simply be suppressed as long as the tree was there, because the effect is being blocked by a solid barrier - the square is unable to be effected.
To rationalize it, imagine yourself running through the wall of fire. You are burned by it, but fire does not appear inside your body. The moment you are through the wall, fire reappears where you ran through.
You could rule that the tree is being damaged by fire, but that is a question for a different thread.
The spell Wall of Fire specifically says:
Any creature that crosses the wall or is occupying the wall's area at the start of its turn takes 4d6 fire damage.
If you could prove that a tree counts as a creature, then the tree would simply be 'in the way' and would be taking damage, but the damage is probably inconsequential to its HP within the duration of the spell. Similarly, though, if the tree moves (or entirely burns to ashes), fire returns.
Absolutely all spells require Line of effect (unless otherwise explicitly stated).
You need to provide citation for the bolded claim. The rules do not say this.
The inferred requirement that ALL spells require Line of Effect is leftover from Pathfinder 1E which reads:
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.
When creating an effect, you usually need an unblocked path to the target of a spell, the origin point of an effect’s area, or the place where you create something with a spell or other ability.
Pf2e is much less strict. The term usually is used in PF2E, not must. It is not a requirement, but is usually needed for the spell to function. 'Must' demands the spell to explicitly declare it is an exception. 'Usually' says it is relative to the spell.
And all targeting (with Targets entry and most 'target' words unless they messed up wordings which happens) also requires Line of sight (unless otherwise explicitly stated).
This is also not what is actually stated in the rules.
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. If you fail to target a particular creature, this doesn’t change how the spell affects any other targets the spell might have.
Some effects require you to have line of sight to your target
Line of Sight is not explicitly required for targeting; it is only potentially required for resolving the effect of the spell and clarifies the meaning of seeing/sight if it is mentioned in the spell description and states what counts as 'sight' (precise sense and not blocked by a solid barrier). See Dimension Door for an example.
Note that Vision is basically the only Precise Sense in the game barring a few unique creatures and some creatures from Adventure Paths.Targeting only requires the ability to precisely sense the target (Line of Sight also requires the target 'not be blocked by a solid barrier'). This is particularly relevant for targeting invisible creatures or creatures you can only imprecisely sense.
In most circumstances, you can sense creatures without difficulty and target them normally. Creatures in this state are observed. Observing requires a precise sense... If you can’t observe the creature, it’s either hidden, undetected, or unnoticed, and you’ll need to factor in the targeting restrictions.
You can choose a target that you cannot precisely sense but it suffers the hidden, undetected, or unnoticed targeting restrictions.
This actually makes me realize in my previous post I initially said Line of Sight was required, when it is not. Only the ability to precisely sense, which I did state/correct in my conclusion.
Concerning area effects, you ignored this:
When creating an effect, you usually need an unblocked path to the target of a spell, the origin point of an effect’s area, or the place where you create something with a spell or other ability.'Usually' just equals my "unless otherwise explicitly stated" and nothing more.
That is the division in the the interpretations. It has been discussed ad nauseam in this thread, as was mentioned earlier.
Your interpretation leaves questions unanswered about how to interact with spells that you attempt to cast without realizing you do not have line of effect. Do you lose the spell slot? Does the GM give you metaknowledge saying that you are unable to cast the spell for some reason?The other interpretation (the one I am presenting) does not have that ambiguity.
I am merely summarizing the two interpretations for those that do not want to read that entire thread. Readers can choose which to adhere to since the community will likely remain divided on the matter.
|
Pathfinder doesn't parse "usually" quite like a mathematician might parse predicate logic.
If a rule says "usually you need X for Y" you can assume that you need X for Y unless the particular ability you're using says you don't need X.
Usually you need line of effect for spells. You cast a spell, some magical energy moves from you to where the effect is gonna happen. If there's an obstacle in the way, then that's a problem unless your spell is one of those wacky ones that can go around corners.
Most of the time, line of effect and line of effect go together. But not always:
* Your target is in a dark room and you can't see in the dark. But there are no barriers in the way. You have line of effect but no line of sight, so there'll be flat checks to properly target the spell.
* The room is perfectly well-lit but there's a Wall of Force in the way. You have line of sight, but no line of effect (except for visual effects).
Overall, PF2 is relatively easygoing on line of sight. In PF1 you sometimes couldn't even start trying to cast a spell if you couldn't see the target. In PF2 you can try, even if the target is Hidden. Undetected is a corner case, you can say "I believe it's in that square" and the GM might let you try that. And then you end up with a flat check. Which can still be hero-pointed. So overall, it's not nearly as hard to put a pin in something you can't properly see.
Absolutely all spells require Line of effect (unless otherwise explicitly stated).You need to provide citation for the bolded claim. The rules do not say this.
Sorry, I forgot to bold a few words in the clarification request. Here it is updated.
No. I absolutely and definitely don't need to.
Yes you do, in a rules forum, so that we can deliberate over what rule you are bringing up.
From my perspective, you are simply stating your opinion, not an actual rule that is written in the game. I am providing what the rules actually say.I am left to infer we have a division on the definition of the wording 'usually need' from Line of Effect.
When creating an effect, you usually need an unblocked path to the target of a spell, the origin point of an effect’s area, or the place where you create something with a spell or other ability. This is called a line of effect.
As a native English speaker, 'usually need' does not mean 'must have', to me.
'Must', by definition, necessitates; therefore, an exception would have to be clearly expressed.'Usually' does not mean this; it means 'typically' or 'in most cases'.
By your definition of 'usually', they could simply have omitted 'usually' from the rule and just said 'you need' instead of 'you usually need'.
Pathfinder doesn't parse "usually" quite like a mathematician might parse predicate logic.
I am, in fact, looking at the wording as a mathematician would, because I am a mathematician.
The way to parse it is an opinion and one that citing rules cannot really change. So in this regard, we will simply have to agree to disagree, not too surprisingly.
We still have the two interpretations:
1. Line of Effect to your target is required by all spells
2. Line of Effect to your target is required only if the spell produces an effect that would be blocked by a solid barrier.
I do not want this forum to become one with 200 post like the other thread which has already discussed both of these interpretations extensively. So I am content leaving the summarized versions of both interpretations in this thread for those that do not want to read the entirety of the other thread. I don't think it is worth reviving that old thread over a matter of difference in parsing preference.
Interpretation 2 makes a lot of 'sense' in a casual sense, insofar as that it doesn't follow that a glass wall should naturally block calling down a lightning bolt from the sky, or purely visual effect, or an effect that creates something at a specific point.
But then applying this rule generally would significantly alter how spells work and directly contradict the established rules.
Not because of any one parsing interpretation, but because
When creating an effect, you usually need an unblocked path to the target of a spell, the origin point of an effect’s area, or the place where you create something with a spell or other ability.
stops being a true statement once nearly every spell that isn't a projectile can now be cast regardless of LoE.
Interpretation 2 makes a lot of 'sense' in a casual sense, insofar as that it doesn't follow that a glass wall should naturally block calling down a lightning bolt from the sky, or purely visual effect, or an effect that creates something at a specific point.
I personally like and prefer this interpretation and its implications, whether we agree or not. Because...
When creating an effect, you usually need an unblocked path to the target of a spell, the origin point of an effect’s area, or the place where you create something with a spell or other ability.stops being a true statement once nearly every spell that isn't a projectile can now be cast regardless of LoE.
this only applies in the rare circumstances that you would be able to target a creature you do not have Line of Effect to. Which usually is not the case, because targeting requires...
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.
Since vision is, almost exclusively, the only Precise Sense, you usually would not be able to target a creature (or area) behind a solid barrier (read: That you do not have Line of Effect to).
So the implications of the second interpretation literally only apply if you are casting through glass or using a different Precise Sense; hence, you usually need Line of Effect.
To continue the English language lesson of the day: Alternative rule language would cause other problems.
The rule could instead say
When creating an effect, you always need an unblocked path to the target of a spell, the origin point of an effect’s area, or the place where you create something with a spell or other ability.
or simply leave the word out - which would have the same meaning
When creating an effect, you need an unblocked path to the target of a spell, the origin point of an effect’s area, or the place where you create something with a spell or other ability.
But this would be read as causing a contradiction when writing spells like Clairvoyance that don't require line of sight.
So to avoid the contradiction, the rule writer used the word 'usually' instead of 'always'.
To continue the English language lesson of the day: Alternative rule language would cause other problems.
The rule could instead say
When creating an effect, you always need an unblocked path to the target of a spell, the origin point of an effect’s area, or the place where you create something with a spell or other ability.or simply leave the word out - which would have the same meaning
When creating an effect, you need an unblocked path to the target of a spell, the origin point of an effect’s area, or the place where you create something with a spell or other ability.But this would be read as causing a contradiction when writing spells like Clairvoyance that don't require line of sight.
So to avoid the contradiction, the rule writer used the word 'usually' instead of 'always'.
Well that is in fact the problem. Spells and effects that don't need line of effect call it out. That is specific overrides general and how the game works.
The correct thing for the writer to have done would have been to delete the word usually from all these sentences. It is a problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder doesn't parse "usually" quite like a mathematician might parse predicate logic.
I am, in fact, looking at the wording as a mathematician would, because I am a mathematician.
The way to parse it is an opinion and one that citing rules cannot really change. So in this regard, we will simply have to agree to disagree, not too surprisingly.
We still have the two interpretations:
1. Line of Effect to your target is required by all spells
2. Line of Effect to your target is required only if the spell produces an effect that would be blocked by a solid barrier.I do not want this forum to become one with 200 post like the other thread which has already discussed both of these interpretations extensively. So I am content leaving the summarized versions of both interpretations in this thread for those that do not want to read the entirety of the other thread. I don't think it is worth reviving that old thread over a matter of difference in parsing preference.
Sadly Pathfinder 2 was not written by mathematicians, scientists, engineers or IT profesionals, or we wouldn't be having this discussion.
It is supposedly written in natural language. To make it easier to read and accessible. That is highly annoying as a large portion of their customer base are in those professions. We would have definitely prefered a tighter precisely defined syntax. Instead we have most of the defined terms we need but not all, and the language is weak in a number of places.Please note that the rules are mostly workable. It is one of the better rules sets out there. But if you know where to look you will find problems.
My advice, and theirs, is to play it how you see fit. There are some stupid corners to the game. If you find yourself in one, just do what seems right.
It is a game.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sadly Pathfinder 2 was not written by mathematicians, scientists, engineers or IT profesionals, or we wouldn't be having this discussion.
In my experience as someone in one of these fields, I do not think having the entire writing staff for PF2 being one of these professions would be helpful for making a better-written game. I do find it odd how often those of us in these professions view ourselves as automatically better at just about everything one could tangentially relate with logic, even if logic is definitely not the most important part of the task.
If I recall correctly, Mark Seifter was also part-way through a PhD at MIT in one of these fields when he left to join Paizo, so PF2 was written (in-part) by the people you're discussing here.
In my experience as someone in one of these fields, I do not think having the entire writing staff for PF2 being one of these professions would be helpful for making a better-written game. I do find it odd how often those of us in these professions view ourselves as automatically better at just about everything one could tangentially relate with logic, even if logic is definitely not the most important part of the task.
I agree flavour is more important. It's not my meaning to criticise anyone. Any stereotyping around profession is just a crude approximation anyway. People are wildy different - and we are all the better for that.
Just that the decision to go natural language, does not actually make the rules easier to use. In fact it does the reverse. Because natural languague is complex and context sensitive. The readers don't always get what the writers mean. The way they started down the path of better organisation with traits was really good. But then they muddled up attacks, attack trait, attack roll. They never really defined properly certain rules terms like Damage Instance or Damage Type or Additional Damage. The damage equation they provided is a blob of text that is an insult to technically minded people.
Having an overly logical person parse these rules would have solved a lot for very little effort early on. Bugs are almost inevitable, and they did check these rules. We know many of the issues came out of late changes. But ...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sadly Pathfinder 2 was not written by mathematicians, scientists, engineers or IT profesionals, or we wouldn't be having this discussion.In my experience as someone in one of these fields, I do not think having the entire writing staff for PF2 being one of these professions would be helpful for making a better-written game. I do find it odd how often those of us in these professions view ourselves as automatically better at just about everything one could tangentially relate with logic, even if logic is definitely not the most important part of the task.
If I recall correctly, Mark Seifter was also part-way through a PhD at MIT in one of these fields when he left to join Paizo, so PF2 was written (in-part) by the people you're discussing here.
It is a common observation that experts often believe that expertise in one field conveys expertise in all fields. It doesn’t, of course.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just that the decision to go natural language, does not actually make the rules easier to use. In fact it does the reverse.
While I agree natural language isn't necessarily always a good thing, I do have to slightly disagree.
Most of the most severe bits of rules confusion I see in PF2 come from when the game tries to get more technical, not less. Having the word attack mean different things in different contexts (like attacks, attack rolls, and unarmed attacks all being unique concepts) is not really writing in natural language at all.