| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
There are only a few hexes listed that specifically mention that the target must be seen (ie, Evil Eye and Waxen Image). Does that mean that a witch who has been blinded can still use other hexes (say, Misfortune, for instance) without having a visual target?
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
As I said a few days ago, I would have liked it if Paizo had clarified how SU abilities work now that we have classes that widely use them.
"Misfortune (Su): The witch can cause a creature within 30 feet to suffer grave misfortune for 1 round."
Strictly RAW, it is not targeted. And, again strictly RAW, the rules about targeting a spell aren't relevant for SU abilities.
But, if we use that strictly RAW we end without any clear rules on how the SU abilities work.
Personally, I use most of them as targeted effects when something in the hex description doesn't explicitly says otherwise, so they require a way to select and locate the target.
The question is what Hexes require Line of Sight and/or Line of Effect from the Witch to the target.
Strictly RAW you can use Misfortune against a creature on the other side of a wall without any aperture, as it doesn't say you need LOS or LOE. That will generate a lot of what I perceive as abuse, but other people can feel that is totally acceptable.
YMMV.
A big problem with PF1e is that there are certain rules that are not spelled out, but only inferred because the exception to the rule is spelled out.
Maybe it's bad editing, but why specifically say these hexes need a target that is seen, while every other hex lacks that language?
Strictly RAW, it is not targeted. And, again strictly RAW, the rules about targeting a spell aren't relevant for SU abilities.
I believe it's intended that you can't target *anything* without the ability to see or otherwise perceive the enemy, let alone targeted spells. I wouldn't just let a blind archer shoot a target's square for 50% miss chance unless he had some significant means of actually pinpointing a square at a distance. It shouldn't matter that the player can see the board still.
But if the witch knows that the target is there through other sensory means (in this specific case, the witch is actually a witchcrow with hex abilities, and the target will be the PC who has the witchcrow bound (but not gagged) and in her backpack) why not hex away?
Again:
The witch can cause doubt to creep into the mind of a foe within 30 feet that she can see.
The witch can cause a creature within 30 feet to suffer grave misfortune for 1 round.
One specifically states you need visual contact, the other doesn't.
If it's up to interpretation, I know my stance. I'm just looking for some hard and fast evidence to convince me otherwise before making my final ruling.
|
|
Strictly RAW, it is not targeted. And, again strictly RAW, the rules about targeting a spell aren't relevant for SU abilities.I believe it's intended that you can't target *anything* without the ability to see or otherwise perceive the enemy, let alone targeted spells. I wouldn't just let a blind archer shoot a target's square for 50% miss chance unless he had some significant means of actually pinpointing a square at a distance. It shouldn't matter that the player can see the board still.
The problem is that Misfortune(and a few other hexes) doesn't say at all that it targets someone. It is implied, but "implied" isn't a rule.
Misfortune (Su) (Advanced Player's Guide pg. 66): The witch can cause a creature within 30 feet (only a distance limit) to suffer grave misfortune for 1 round. Anytime the creature makes an ability check, attack roll, saving throw, or skill check, it must roll twice and take the worse result. A Will save negates this hex. At 8th level and 16th level, the duration of this hex is extended by 1 round. This hex affects all rolls the target (here it uses the term target) must make while it lasts. Whether or not the save is successful, a creature cannot be the target (and here) of this hex again for 1 day.
In the two points where it uses the term "target", it is used in the meaning "creature affected", not as "aiming".
Not how I use it, I will require it to be targeted, but the problem is with SU abilities, as they don't have a section of the rules explaining how they work. There are very limited rules on SU abilities, probably the developers thought that all would be explained in the single ability description, but then the abilities multiplied and a lot of contributors simply assumed they did know how the SU abilities worked.
|
|
But if the witch knows that the target is there through other sensory means (in this specific case, the witch is actually a witchcrow with hex abilities, and the target will be the PC who has the witchcrow bound (but not gagged) and in her backpack) why not hex away?
Again:
The witch can cause doubt to creep into the mind of a foe within 30 feet that she can see.The witch can cause a creature within 30 feet to suffer grave misfortune for 1 round.One specifically states you need visual contact, the other doesn't.
If it's up to interpretation, I know my stance. I'm just looking for some hard and fast evidence to convince me otherwise before making my final ruling.
You can always target a creature you touch. SU and Hex normally don't require you to speak, so even gagged it can be used. Cackling requires you to speak, so the witch would be unable to maintain the Misfortune.
If it's up to interpretation, I know my stance. I'm just looking for some hard and fast evidence to convince me otherwise before making my final ruling.
I think closest thing to a hard rule we have is this: "You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target." CRB pg. 214 That's from the spell rules, but it's presented as a general rule of how targetting something works. Since Evil Eye explicitly requires vision, it would not work with touch.
|
|
If it's up to interpretation, I know my stance. I'm just looking for some hard and fast evidence to convince me otherwise before making my final ruling.I think closest thing to a hard rule we have is this: "You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target." CRB pg. 214 That's from the spell rules, but it's presented as a general rule of how targetting something works. Since Evil Eye explicitly requires vision, it would not work with touch.
djdust explicitly stated that Evil Eye is one of the few hexes that mention that the target needs to be seen, and asked about those that haven't that requirement, like Misfortune.
djdust explicitly stated that Evil Eye is one of the few hexes that mention that the target needs to be seen, and asked about those that haven't that requirement, like Misfortune.
Yes, that's what I responded to. Apart from the last sentence, which was in response to the OP's question "why specifically say these hexes need a target that is seen, while every other hex lacks that language?"
It should be noted that "if there are no rules on a specific thing, use the next closest rule" is Paizo's position, as evident by this FAQ.
The problem is that Misfortune(and a few other hexes) doesn't say at all that it targets someone. It is implied, but "implied" isn't a rule.Strictly RAW, it is not targeted. And, again strictly RAW, the rules about targeting a spell aren't relevant for SU abilities.I believe it's intended that you can't target *anything* without the ability to see or otherwise perceive the enemy, let alone targeted spells. I wouldn't just let a blind archer shoot a target's square for 50% miss chance unless he had some significant means of actually pinpointing a square at a distance. It shouldn't matter that the player can see the board still.
Shooting an arrow at someone doesn't say you have to target the person, but I still wouldn't let someone do it without other means of locating squares. I see no reason one should allow one and not the other.
Re: cackle while gagged, you actually can cackle while gagged, because it doesn't rely on anyone being able to hear the the cackle to extend any effect, (see cackling in silence effect), it just matters that you are making some, even muffled sound.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This target or not targeted debate is quite honestly pointlessly absurd. If the ability affects one or more individuals selected by the user then it is targeted.
Shooting an arrow at someone doesn't say you have to target the person
I don't disagree with what you're trying to say, but... "Ranged Attacks: With a ranged weapon, you can shoot or throw at any target that is within the weapon’s maximum range and in line of sight." CRB pg. 182
Re: cackle while gagged, you actually can cackle while gagged, because it doesn't rely on anyone being able to hear the the cackle to extend any effect, (see cackling in silence effect), it just matters that you are making some, even muffled sound.
this isn't an attack as it doesn't require an attack roll. I think if an ability includes the word 'target', it doesn't necessarily mean a 'target lock' situation with a blinking red crosshair suddenly turning green.
So, in the context of this edge case, if the target of a Misfortune hex is a cleric shouting threats from 25 ft across the battlefield, maybe a Perception check is necessary. I'd say DC 20. (20 to sense creature, +20 for being technically invisible, -20 for speaking or engaging in combat.)
If the target is the bard carrying the blinded and bound witchcrow in their backpack, no check necessary because the witchcrow knows exactly where their target is, they technically share the same space.
|
|
this isn't an attack as it doesn't require an attack roll. I think if an ability includes the word 'target', it doesn't necessarily mean a 'target lock' situation with a blinking red crosshair suddenly turning green.
The definition of "an attack" isn't "something that requires an attack roll". Any spell, power, and action that affect an unwilling creature is an attack.
If an ability says that it targets someone, it means that the creature that uses the ability needs both Line of Sight and Line of Effect to the target.
Re: cackle while gagged, you actually can cackle while gagged, because it doesn't rely on anyone being able to hear the the cackle to extend any effect, (see cackling in silence effect), it just matters that you are making some, even muffled sound.Literally every part of this is wrong.
Weird, I remember an FAQ that said the opposite, that they didn't need to hear the cackling. Can't find another dev or semi-official opinion (read JJ/SKR) that I might be remembering. The only other thread before the ruling I can find is here and they concluded at the time that as a non-sonic effect it wouldn't be impeded. Guess I just missed the memo.
Still wouldn't allow someone to "blindly" pick out a square via metagame and attack someone with a ranged weapon or any other single target/non-aoe attack.
|
|
Still wouldn't allow someone to "blindly" pick out a square via metagame and attack someone with a ranged weapon or any other single target/non-aoe attack.
By metagame (i.e. I see the target position on the map), I won't.
But there are plenty of skill checks, perceptible actions, magic items, and abilities that can give an indication of what square you should pick.Included the guy with See invisibility pointing it and shouting "it is near that corner!"
One of the clues is touching the target. djdust witch is in the target backpack.
You're still operating on at best one of several squares instead of the entire combat map, save for maybe passing the perception check (that doesn't have a specific DC). In the case of a specific item or otherwise that does actually tell you specific square, sure then this is a specific case when it should be allowed, but that wasn't the assumption of the OP with the witch; the assumption was they were simply blind and even guessing at who was actually within 30ft.
"A creature blinded by darkness can make a Perception check as a free action each round in order to locate foes (DC equal to opponents’ Stealth checks). A successful check lets a blinded character hear an unseen creature “over there somewhere.” It’s almost impossible to pinpoint the location of an unseen creature. A Perception check that beats the DC by 20 reveals the unseen creature’s square (but the unseen creature still has total concealment from the blinded creature)." CRB pg. 443
"For ranged attacks or spells against a foe whose location is not pinpointed, roll to determine which adjacent square the blinded creature is facing; its attack is directed at the closest target that lies in that direction." CRB pg. 442
Still wouldn't allow someone to "blindly" pick out a square via metagame and attack someone with a ranged weapon or any other single target/non-aoe attack.
"If a character tries to attack an invisible creature whose location he has not pinpointed, have the player choose the space where the character will direct the attack. If the invisible creature is there, conduct the attack normally. If the enemy’s not there, roll the miss chance as if it were there and tell him that the character has missed, regardless of the result. That way the player doesn’t know whether the attack missed because the enemy’s not there or because you successfully rolled the miss chance." CRB pg. 563
"Ray: Some effects are rays. You aim a ray as if using a ranged weapon, though typically you make a ranged touch attack rather than a normal ranged attack. As with a ranged weapon, you can fire into the dark or at an invisible creature and hope you hit something. You don’t have to see the creature you’re trying to hit, as you do with a targeted spell." CRB pg. 214
Obviously this assumes no metagaming, but players shouldn't know where an invisible creature is, anyway.
There's a bit of context to the game environment in some of these rulings. A GM might not place the token for a creature on the map if it's invisible, hence the "roll but inform them it misses either way" ruling, and while the "shoot at any target in a random direction" has a hidden realism element of "you mistook some other sound for the enemy" but for some reason it spins you completely around even though you already know the direction.
So basically yes, if you can make a DC 27+ (factoring in the distracted and unfavorable conditions modifiers) perception check, then that's one of the possible ways you can even get the possibility of getting a hex off while blinded, before we recognize that it's still a targeted effect.