The Spells chapter in CRB states that you need sight (or another precise sense) to target normally with a spell, but the GM may allow you to target a creature you can't see as described in Detecting Creatures. Is this referring to the flat check made against hidden and undetected creatures, meaning that a spell only outright requires sight if it says so (such as magic missile)? Or do all spells with specific targets (as opposed to origin points) require sight by default?
Not exactly, Line of Sight isn't same of 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. You have line of effect unless a creature is entirely behind a solid physical barrier. Visibility doesn’t matter for line of effect, nor do portcullises and other barriers that aren’t totally solid. If you’re unsure whether a barrier is solid enough, usually a 1-foot-square gap is enough to maintain a line of effect, though the GM makes the final call.
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. 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—that creature is unaffected by the fireball and doesn’t need to attempt a save against it. Likewise, any ongoing effects created by an ability with an area cease to affect anyone who moves outside of the line of effect.
So AoE spells in general don't require a Line of Sight but an unblocked path. But other effects like Ranged Attack Spells requires (in the same way that non-magical Ranged Attacks does). Other spells may avoid both and act like a trap or selecting out-of-sight target like Dream Message.
But in general is for AoE spells (burst/square) you need to see the (or use other precise perception) the casting point, for attack spells works like a normal attacks, the effects don't need line of sight just a free path and specific rules overrides general, the spell description can change all this.
Using your Magic Missle as example. In the begining of the description it's says "You send a dart of force streaking toward a creature that you can see. It automatically hits and deals 1d4+1 force damage". So you just need to see (or use a similar precise perception) the target to hit it. Fully hidden and specially undetected targets cannot be target if you can't detect it with your precise senses so you can't hit them because you can't target them because the spell requirest that you are able to "see" them.
Electric arc, which targets one or two creatures, doesn't say anything about sight. Suppose I have line of effect to the targets but they are in an area of darkness, causing them to be concealed and preventing me from seeing them. Can I still target them by succeeding on a DC 5 flat check?
Electric arc, which targets one or two creatures, doesn't say anything about sight. Suppose I have line of effect to the targets but they are in an area of darkness, causing them to be concealed and preventing me from seeing them. Can I still target them by succeeding on a DC 5 flat check?
Nope, here's what the rules say:
Some effects require you to have line of sight to your target. 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. An area of darkness prevents line of sight if you don’t have darkvision, but portcullises and other obstacles that aren’t totally solid do not. If you’re unsure whether a barrier is solid enough to block line of sight, usually a 1-foot-square gap is enough to maintain line of sight, though the GM makes the final call.
Since the rules actually call out Darkness requiring Darkvision to provide Line of Sight as an example (otherwise having a DC 11 flat check to target with non-spell effects, assuming you target the correct square), this would technically mean that any sort of flat check would discount Line of Sight at all times, so even on a DC 5 Flat check from Concealment, you would not have Line of Sight to the target, because it doesn't fulfill the Line of Sight's requirement of it being "precisely sensed."
In my opinion, I don't think this is intended, because then this means with a 2nd level spell that provides a DC 5 Flat check (Blur), I am immune to all targeted effects (yes, even Dispel Magic, because you don't have Line of Sight to the effect), which is way beyond the scope of what Blur as a spell is meant to accomplish. And if you know which square the creature is in, then you have at least some sort of capacity to target the creature (even if not precisely), so it would make sense that, if a spellcaster wishes to try their luck on a flat check to target the creature with their spell, that it should be allowed, since the spell is still being expended, and there is still risk that the spell will do nothing simply because it wasn't a precise targeting (as determined by the flat check).
Technically speaking, though, any flat check on a creature would discredit the requirement of Line of Sight demanding that you can "precisely sense" the creature, even if you know exactly which square they are in.
Right, I haven't read the darkness rules yet. So I could still target the creatures in the darkness, but it's a DC 11 check because they're hidden rather than just concealed?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My understanding of Spell Targeting:
Area effects you just have to know where to put the area. A precise sense to that area at the time of casting is probably required, though I would allow targeting an area without any miss chance if you had precise sense of the location recently. So if someone casts Darkness, you can still cast Fireball, Lightning Bolt, or Burning Hands into that area without having to roll about missing the ground. Once the area for the spell is determined, visibility doesn't matter for targeting creatures in the area. The only thing that prevents the effect from affecting those creatures is if there isn't line of effect.
Direct target spells (whether they have spell attack rolls or saving throws) require precise sense of the target at the time that they are cast.
However, there is an optional rule that the GM can use (and the ones that I know of do) that allows trying to target a creature when the spellcaster has less visibility on them. It gives the spell targeting the normal miss chances for other forms of attack targeting a concealed or hidden target.
Electric arc, which targets one or two creatures, doesn't say anything about sight. Suppose I have line of effect to the targets but they are in an area of darkness, causing them to be concealed and preventing me from seeing them. Can I still target them by succeeding on a DC 5 flat check?
Correct. You choose to target them, do your action then roll your check. There is also sometimes a saving throw or attack roll. But concealment and hidden apply to all targetted things, so a few specials like Magic Missile can actually miss. Which will surprise some people.
The better choice is to go area of effect say Scatter Scree - that just works.
My understanding of Spell Targeting:
Area effects you just have to know where to put the area. A precise sense to that area at the time of casting is probably required, though I would allow targeting an area without any miss chance if you had precise sense of the location recently. So if someone casts Darkness, you can still cast Fireball, Lightning Bolt, or Burning Hands into that area without having to roll about missing the ground. Once the area for the spell is determined, visibility doesn't matter for targeting creatures in the area. The only thing that prevents the effect from affecting those creatures is if there isn't line of effect.
Direct target spells (whether they have spell attack rolls or saving throws) require precise sense of the target at the time that they are cast.
However, there is an optional rule that the GM can use (and the ones that I know of do) that allows trying to target a creature when the spellcaster has less visibility on them. It gives the spell targeting the normal miss chances for other forms of attack targeting a concealed or hidden target.
Is it really an optional rule? I just looked at Concealed, and it explicitly states that targeting with spells (except for area effect spells) is susceptible to the DC 5 flat check. Huh. I guess that answers my question.
The rules for Concealed and Hidden aren't optional. Applying them to spells with direct targets is.
Some spells allow you to directly target a creature, an object, or something that fits a more specific category. 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.
So if a GM decides to not allow it, then you would have to follow the first part of that, and "you must be able to see it (or otherwise perceive it with a precise sense) to target it".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rules for Concealed and Hidden aren't optional. Applying them to spells with direct targets is.
Some spells allow you to directly target a creature, an object, or something that fits a more specific category. 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.So if a GM decides to not allow it, then you would have to follow the first part of that, and "you must be able to see it (or otherwise perceive it with a precise sense) to target it".
I think that rule quote is misleading. When you read the CRB pages 465-467 it becomes obvious that it is referring to undetected creatures. That is the GM can just say no when targetting undetected. But they give clear rules for targetting hidden so there is no reason to put the GM caveat for that.
Well, the only time I have ever heard of a rules quote being misleading is when it is only half of a contradictory pair of rules.
So I am guessing that is what you are mentioning.
But they give clear rules for targetting hidden so there is no reason to put the GM caveat for that.
So which rules are you talking about? And what is your reasoning for thinking that it is contradictory with the 'at GM's discretion' line in spell targeting?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just that the GMs discretion clause is about targeting undetecting things, ie fishing a spell into a square that might have a creature in it. For hidden and concealed the rule is the straight forward flat check.
Why does it say "GM discretion" anyway? The only part of Detecting Creatures (which the direct spell target rule is citing) that the GM really decides is whether a spell or other ability can be used to try targeting an undetected creature. Aside from that, Detecting Creatures kind of takes it for granted that spellcasters can do this, and this section fleshes out what happens if you try directly targeting a creature you can't see very well. The hidden and undetected conditions themselves even explicitly talk about spell targeting.
Why does Paizo leave it up to the GM at all? It's not clear to me whether allowing spell targeting against hidden creatures is broken or disallowing it is too much of a nerf to casters. On what basis does the GM allow or disallow this?
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So as I understand it the rules are as follows:
- There are four degrees of awareness. Observed, Hidden, Undetected, Unnoticed.
- The only way for someone to be observed is if you're using a precise sense. Imprecise senses can't achieve better than hidden.
- Observed creatures can be concealed. They're still observed with a precise sense. If you're not using a precise sense to observe, then they'd be hidden instead. Concealed is not one of the degrees of awareness, it just seems like one because it uses a flat check like hidden. And of course concealed is a situation that allows someone to try a stealth check to Hide and become hidden.
- You can target observed and hidden creatures. Observed creatures with concealment are subject to a flat check to hit. So are hidden creatures. Undetected creatures can only be targeted at the GM's discretion, because you don't know which square to even send your effect into. Unnoticed creatures you won't target because you don't even suspect they're in the scene.
- Line of sight is a concept you use to figure out if something would be observed cleanly, observed with concealment, or hidden/undetected/unnoticed. After figuring that out, you know whether targeting is possible and whether there are flat checks.