| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Line of effect for spells like these comes from the point of origin of the effect and not the caster.
This part is incorrect. By default, all magic does have some part that "travels" from the caster to the targeted location. That is the primary "line of effect" that is the universal default. Even when not in the spell's text, all square-targeted spells are given this "spell travels from caster to target" step via this base rule. For a spell to *not* do this, the text of a spell would need to call it out and override that general rule.
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.
.
After that, some spells may have secondary considerations that also get the term "line of effect" (Yes, this is written in a confusing way)In an area effect, creatures or targets must have line of effect to the point of origin to be affected.
To be clear, this is a different line of effect than the spell casting one, but it does carry the same mechanical concepts.
The center point of an exploding fireball has its own line of effect consideration, where only the squares/creatures with a line of effect between them and the explosion origin will be harmed.
So there are at least 2 different "line of effect" considerations for casting Fireball. One between the caster and point of explosion, and another between the explosion and potential victims.
Line of Sight says:
Some effects require you to have line of sight to your target. As long as you can precisely sense the area (as described in Precise Senses) and it is not blocked by a solid barrier (as described in Cover), 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. Usually a 1-foot-square gap is enough to maintain line of sight, though the GM makes the final call.
Technically speaking, area of affect spells don't have a target...but as a GM I'm not letting it happen. If you don't have line of sight, you can't choose where you're targeting. And if you can't see at all (because you've been blinded), then you don't have a precise sense to sense the area.
But Trip H's points are important to know too. You need line of effect from caster to "point of origin of the spell" and from that point of origin to anything to be affected by it.
So no, you definitely can't aim your fireball to the opposite side of a wall.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I had a player was insistent about launching an area of effect spell while blinded, I might let them do it if they agree to some sort of modifier to the distance (and I don't really know how I would do it, which is why my first answer is just NO).
But you will 100% never convince me you can accurately place the origin of the spell while blinded, even when it's "just an area of effect spell".
I understand it's a big change to "how the rules technically work", but I think the rules are simply wrong in this topic.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not like the caster has their bearings; it's only the player's meta-knowledge that provides the data the PC needs. So how are they getting that data? Can't detect the spot, then can't discern it's the spot you want. So 50% miss chance at minimum, say if an ally points out the direction to shoot or you're using a line AoE vs. a noisy enemy (or cone with near certainty). Unless the caster's dropping it on themselves of course.
But yeah, I'd certainly let them cast it. Hard to say they can't. Just beware, it's a literal shot in the dark.
ETA: There's a maxim for battle to seldom trust your eyes and never trust your ears. Such a cacophony A pitched battle would be very loud, with all kinds of actions packed into seconds, made worse if inside like many are.
It's not like the caster has their bearings; it's only the player's meta-knowledge that provides the data the PC needs. So how are they getting that data? Can't detect the spot, then can't discern it's the spot you want. So 50% miss chance at minimum, say if an ally points out the direction to shoot or you're using a line AoE vs. a noisy enemy (or cone with near certainty). Unless the caster's dropping it on themselves of course.
But yeah, I'd certainly let them cast it. Hard to say they can't. Just beware, it's a literal shot in the dark.
I mean yeah, they can definitely cast the spell. It's the "casting it where they want" part that I'm a hard no on.
As you said, 50% miss chance minimum...although that really only works when targeting things (and by game mechanics they're not targeting anything), so how one adjudicates how far off they ar...it's not something we have guidance on how to do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I had a player was insistent about launching an area of effect spell while blinded, I might let them do it if they agree to some sort of modifier to the distance (and I don't really know how I would do it, which is why my first answer is just NO).
But you will 100% never convince me you can accurately place the origin of the spell while blinded, even when it's "just an area of effect spell".
I understand it's a big change to "how the rules technically work", but I think the rules are simply wrong in this topic.
Yeah this is one of those cases of "RAW you can do it"... but how? Like, you're precision aiming by using hearing as an imprecise sense? It doesn't pass the verisimilitude test for me because it doesn't make any sense that you take penalties to a bunch of other things due to being blind but can still do this perfectly well.
Weapons in this situation make everything Hidden and impose a large miss chance because of it. It would be reasonable IMO for spells to do the same thing. For something like fireball with its large blast radius, it seems reasonable to me that you can get it in the vicinity of where you're trying to, but actually getting the exact positioning should have a failure chance just like shooting a bow at something there would.
And if you fail? Well, it's going somewhere...
That's not 'technically', it's substantially. You really don't have targets for AoE (except exceptions blah blah blah). And points of origin (PoO) really aren't targets. They even were thorough about it. So you really don't target anything when choosing PoO. And don't need Line of Sight to it. And so yes, you absolutely can throw fireballs in darkness when not having darkvision. Or when being blind.
Though, yes, line of effect is still needed and you can't throw fireballs to the opposite site of a wall. Even if it's a paper wall. Or a solid glass window. Technically.
Sounds like you remember that old debate thread too. I have changed my thoughts on the matter since that time.
To quote the relevant rules:
Some spells allow you to target a creature, an object, or something more specific. 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. At the GM's discretion, you can attempt to target a creature you can't see, as described in Detecting Creatures on page 434. If you fail to target a particular creature, this doesn't change how the spell affects any other targets the spell has.
...
A spell that has an area but no targets listed usually affects all creatures in the area indiscriminately.
You don't "Target" the origin point of an area effect. You usually target creatures. You may be able to target objects if the spell allows it. And you can target things more specific than that if the spell lists such things as targets.
Area of Effect spells generally will automatically target all creatures or all creatures that meet a criteria. The spell does not need vision or other precise or imprecise senses to do that successfully. It does not matter if the caster has precise senses of the creatures in the area since the caster is not the one doing the targeting.
You usually need an unobstructed path to the target of a spell, the origin point of an area, or the place where you create something with a spell.
You do need Line of Effect to the origin point of an area spell. You cannot cause area effects with an origin point that you don't have line of effect to, such as the opposite side of a wall.
-----
In the case of having no precise or imprecise senses and wanting to cast an AoE spell, I would actually have it depend on the circumstances.
If the character knows the general layout of the terrain, then they can cast AoE spells normally. Meaning that they still have to have LoE to the area being affected. But they don't have any miss chance for their 'targeting' that such spells don't have. As long as they can rely on their previous knowledge of the terrain for guidance.
If the character does not know the layout of the terrain - either because they were deprived of their senses before entering the area or because the terrain has changed significantly without their knowing about it, then they will have some undefined difficulties with casting successfully. Since those difficulties are undefined, it is up to GM Adjudication to decide the game mechanics of how to resolve those difficulties.
Some options that I can think of in this case:
* Pick a point by direction and range (if needed) and fire blindly. If they pick a point that is completely invalid, then it follows the rules for invalid Targeting and the spell has no origin point and therefore no area of effect, though the spell is still cast and expended. Mostly Burst area would run into problems with being completely negated by that. Line and Cone would at least have some area before it hit a solid obstruction that blocks Line of Effect.
* Pick a point by direction and range (if needed). For Burst areas, if the spell would have no effect because of invalid origin point, the caster still spends the actions but learns that 'something is blocking the spell from coming into existence' and can avoid spending the spell slot or other spell resources. For Line and Cone the spell is cast normally and its area will continue until it reaches an obstruction.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I agree applying too much reality it bad for the game, I don't see this particular instance as that case. Saying that an inability to see, which is what you normally need to aim, is not relevant because the rules for area of effect spells don't involve aiming...while technically true doesn't pass the sniff test for me.
Anyways, I'm not going to argue with you and try defend or convince you.
Have a great day.
Errenor, that's a whole lot of strawmanning. I don't read any "but in reality!" arguments there and for you to extrapolate to allowing invisible enemies to avoid fireballs shows bad faith. Do better.
"What do you even mean by 50% miss chance?"
That there's a 50% chance that the PC's concept of the battlefield they use to place the AoE doesn't match the actual battlefield. It's the seed of an answer where a GM would have to adjudicate further. I see that at the end you suggest such a way to adjudicate. Coo beans.
"Why do you think that it (placing an AoE) would be easy in perfect visibility?"
Because the caster can think "right there would be nice" and they know exactly where there is.
"Why do you think that 'real' spells would have geometrically perfect shapes? Constant area sizes and forms from casting to casting?"
Bad faith & irrelevant tangents. Though I imagine AoEs are only exact to such degree that one stays within its squares, so 5'? 2.5'?, much like the rules say durations aren't exact and can't be used like timers.
"Why would you think that it would be easy to place AoEs in a couple of seconds by the eye to include your enemies but not allies? Everytime, without mistakes? But casters do that in this game all the time. Why don't you throw dice to see if your casters haven't also caught allies in AoE by mistake?"
Who's asserting it'd be easy? And yeah, aiming is a game conceit. If your PC knows where they want the spell, they can put the spell there. Trouble is when blinded, the PC doesn't necessarily know where they want the spell. In some contexts they might know, but also may have no clue.
"See, thinking like this would break the game."
Yes, strawman arguments do tend toward the absurd. Or is it a slippery slope argument? Hmm.
And I agree there should be no wasted slots or actions, and by missing that it should resemble something like you've suggested. I'd allow for an ally to do something akin to the Point Out action (or a high Perception caster to use Seek vs. some static DC). Or if the battlefield's remained stable since the unmoved caster last could see that they do have a good imprint of locations (and can do things like "throw it against the back wall" really easily).
But that's all situational, where the caster would know the direction and distance despite being blind. The OP doesn't state how that caster knows these, but if they did, I'd allow it. It's the knowing part that's a hurdle for the blinded PC. IMO...
Can you cast a fireball or gravity well or any other similar while blind by simply stating a direction and distance?
I have a problem with this if the answer is yes. Because based on what I have read fireball and gravity well just appear at the point you choose. There is no effect coming from you that would be blocked by a solid obstruction. Meaning you can just designate a fireball to explode on the other side of any opaque object. Line of effect for spells like these comes from the point of origin of the effect and not the caster.
You can indeed simply specify a location to place an area effect even while blinded. In fact, area effects are usually your best offensive tools while blinded since they avoid the flat check for hidden or undetected targets.
Of course, you still need line of effect to the origin, and there also needs to be line of effect from the origin to each creature in the area.
Line of effect is not line of sight. The latter requires that you can see (or otherwise precisely sense) the target. As long as the target is not undetected, you should be able to accurately include them in a fireball. Even if they are undetected, it's a lot easier to guess correctly when placing a 20 foot burst than if you were Striking individual spaces.
What metagaming is involved? You hear where the enemies are (enough to pin them down to a 5 foot square) and the environment presumably hasn't moved since you became blinded.
I guess there could be some metagaming involved if you were already blinded before you arrived, since all the walls and obstacles would be unnoticed.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it is mainly a metagaming issue - on a VTT you as a player can clearly see...
If a player can clearly see the map while blind on a VTT, then your GM is using the wrong VTT.
Foundry is best. It curbs that metagaming by darkening the screen in such situations. (Among a thousand other great built-in features that help to facilitate gameplay, mitigate metagaming, promote player autonomy, and allow for more frequent and accessible games.)
I think it is mainly a metagaming issue - on a VTT you as a player can clearly see...If a player can clearly see the map while blind on a VTT, then your GM is using the wrong VTT.
Foundry is best. It curbs that metagaming by darkening the screen in such situations. (Among a thousand other great built-in features that help to facilitate gameplay, mitigate metagaming, promote player autonomy, and allow for more frequent and accessible games.)
Honestly, if I had Foundry (it's not free) then I think that would solve things.
I'm guessing Foundry will let the player place an area of effect spell on the map, but they won't be able to see anyone/anything so they have to go off of memory what they saw before being blinded.
To me, that is actually the perfect solution. The player is going to select probably close to where they want, but maybe not exactly.
That would resolve the meta knowledge problem here pretty well.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You wave your hands, mumble some incoherent phrases and fire appears in the distance. But it's utterly unbelievable that you could do that without looking?
I don't really know if the game really locks down the idea that you aim by looking and sort of throwing, or that you might as well just close your eyes, point in a direction, and say "50 feet in that direction"? Or "where I just heard that noise", because an enemy wasn't bothering to Sneak, so is only Hidden anyway?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, if I had Foundry (it's not free) then I think that would solve things.
I'm guessing Foundry will let the player place an area of effect spell on the map, but they won't be able to see anyone/anything so they have to go off of memory what they saw before being blinded.
To me, that is actually the perfect solution. The player is going to select probably close to where they want, but maybe not exactly.
That would resolve the meta knowledge problem here pretty well.
If you're blinded, Foundry still lets you see what squares are occupied, but the tokens are replaced by a swirling one so everyone looks the same. So you can tell what squares are occupied (using hearing or another imprecise sense) but you can't tell who is in each square. That's assuming you don't have access to the other tokens or mods enabled on the server that give more info, of course.
I just tried it and if you're blinded and defeaned, the tokens all disappear entirely and you have no idea where anyone is. You can still largely see the terrain (mine is having a few gaps but its mostly visible which might be a glitch) so you can still aim the spell positionally.
... if they are using an imprecise sense only and forget where the enemies are, then they have to guess at the placement and might catch allies.
They can't "forget where the enemies are" if they can imprecisely sense them, because that alone gives away their position. If you want the player to not know where the enemies are, the enemies will have to Sneak or otherwise thwart that imprecise sense to become undetected.