Magic Targeting Square vs Concealment

[Vegepygmy]

Targeted spell > ineffective against totally concealed "targets"

Not necessarily. If you can touch the target, you can target him even if he has total concealment. A more correct statement would be:

Targeted spell > must be able to see or touch the target(s)

Square/AoE spell > total concealment grants no benefits

Well, none aside from having to guess what square your enemy is in.

Sorry, but no. I know exactly what a "targeted spell" is.

And yet your response makes it clear that you don't.

Melf's does not have 'Target' line. Yet, in the description it specifically states it "speeds to its target." By definition, the target is the intended recipient.

All true, but that doesn't make Melf's a "targeted spell." A "targeted spell" is one that has a "Target:" line, as opposed to "effect spells" (which have an "Effect:" line) and "area spells" (which, you guessed it, have an "Area:" line). Page 175 of your PHB makes this quite clear.

 

[gleead]

Not necessarily. If you can touch the target, you can target him even if he has total concealment. A more correct statement would be:

Targeted spell > must be able to see or touch the target(s)

Well, none aside from having to guess what square your enemy is in.

Right, I was going more for a categorical understanding rather than specific cases. For the "targeted spell" part I was thinking of something like magic missile etc., and of course for an area effect spell to affect someone that someone would have to be within its area of effect.

Although wouldn't touching the target require a touch attack roll anyway (and thus fall into the "attack roll" category)?

 

[Vegepygmy]

Although wouldn't touching the target require a touch attack roll anyway (and thus fall into the "attack roll" category)?

In short, yes.

Magic missile doesn't require an attack roll, but if you wanted to target an opponent you couldn't see with magic missile, you'd have to be touching him. That would require an attack roll, and that attempt to touch your opponent would be subject to a miss chance for concealment. Once you successfully touched him, however, you could target him with magic missile with no miss chance.

Shocking grasp is an example of a targeted spell that requires a touch attack roll. If you tried to touch an invisible opponent with a shocking grasp, your touch attack roll would be subject to a miss chance for concealment.

 

[angelababy]

However, if you think he's in X square, you can still use a melee or ranged touch spell into that square and roll the miss chance and potentialy hit if he's actually there.

 

[radmod]

I was answering another post which made me realize I had forgotten about this one from so long ago.

StreamOfTheSky has it exactly right. You are confused about what a "targeted spell" is.

Melf's acid arrow is not a targeted spell; it has no "Target:" line. Melf's acid arrow is an effect spell; it creates an effect ("One arrow of acid"), and if you aim that effect at an opponent with concealment, you suffer a miss chance.

Sorry, but no. I know exactly what a "targeted spell" is. The problem is in exactly what is a 'target'. .... Melf's does not have 'Target' line. Yet, in the description it specifically states it "speeds to its target." By definition, the target is the intended recipient. Yet, also by definition, "you must be able to see your target." If you cannot see a target, you do not have a target, hence it cannot speed to its target.

And yet your response makes it clear that you don't.

All true, but that doesn't make Melf's a "targeted spell." A "targeted spell" is one that has a "Target:" line, as opposed to "effect spells" (which have an "Effect:" line) and "area spells" (which, you guessed it, have an "Area:" line). Page 175 of your PHB makes this quite clear.

I would contend that you are the one who doesn't know what a "targeted spell" would be.
From the RC:

Other parts of a spell's description include its ... descriptive text.

A spell description defines the spell's target (or targets), its effect, or its area, as appropriate.

Some spells have target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell. You must have line of sight to or be able to touch the target ...

So it is not necessary to have a target line for a spell to be a targeted spell (a spell that requires a target). While one could cast Melf's to a square that contains a hidden enemy, the targeting rules say you can't strike him. Since the requirement of a target is in the descriptive text and the descriptive text is part of the spell's description, then you must follow the rules for targets and without LOS you can't strike your, well, target.

 

[Empirate]

It bothers me that this thread seems to require another answer after vegepygmy's excellent and concise analysis. Nevertheless, it could be that some people take the seeming objections radmod brought up more seriously than they need be taken. For the sake of those people, here's a part of the SRD:

Spell Descriptions
The description of each spell is presented in a standard format. Each category of information is explained and defined below.

Name
The first line of every spell description gives the name by which the spell is generally known.

...

Here follow the standard entries in the spell description, i.e. the standard format part before the descriptive text. Every description given here would therefore refer only to the block of info outside the text describing a spell's functioning. I'll cut to the chase:

[...]

Aiming A Spell

You must make some choice about whom the spell is to affect or where the effect is to originate, depending on the type of spell. The next entry in a spell description defines the spell’s target (or targets), its effect, or its area, as appropriate.

Target or Targets

Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target. You do not have to select your target until you finish casting the spell.

If the target of a spell is yourself (the spell description has a line that reads Target: You), you do not receive a saving throw, and spell resistance does not apply. The Saving Throw and Spell Resistance lines are omitted from such spells ...

This obviously implies that "a target or targets" refers to subjects given in a (facultative) "Target: ..." line. Spells that "have a target or targets" in this sense have a target by virtue of having a "Target: ..." entry in their standard format spell description.

Let's look at Acid Arrow:

Acid Arrow

Conjuration (Creation) [Acid]
Level: Sor/Wiz 2
Components: V, S, M, F
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level)
Effect: One arrow of acid
Duration: 1 round + 1 round per three levels
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No

A magical arrow of acid springs from your hand and speeds to its target. You must succeed on a ranged touch attack to hit your target. The arrow deals 2d4 points of acid damage with no splash damage. For every three caster levels (to a maximum of 18th), the acid, unless somehow neutralized, lasts for another round, dealing another 2d4 points of damage in that round.

The spell description has no "Target: ..." entry. Thus, the spell has no Target in our sense. It produces an Effect instead, namely, an arrow of acid which pops up "in your hand". This arrow of acid (the Effect created by a spell that is now finished casting) can immediately be aimed at a target. This requires a ranged attack, which works like any other ranged attack. Most pertinently, it can be used to attack into a square you cannot see into, like a crossbow or a thrown dagger. This is quite clearly spelled out in Complete Arcane.


Another example of Effect spells without a "Target: ..." entry, which can still be used to hit a target with a ranged attack, are Ray spells.

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. Intervening creatures and obstacles, however, can block your line of sight or provide cover for the creature you’re aiming at.

This should be enough to convince anybody that Effect spells can be aimed at things you can't see. Also, this description all but spells out the definition of a "targeted spell". You wouldn't contend that you could "aim a ray as if using a ranged weapon" if you didn't have a target. But it's still no "targeted spell". Because it doesn't have a "Target: ..." entry.

 

[irdeggman]

From the Rules Compendium pg 124

"Target

Some spell have a target or targets. You can cast spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell. You must have line of sight to or be able to touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target. You don't have to select your target until you finish casting the spell. You must have line of effect to any target that you cast a spell on.


Effect


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 weapon, you can fire into the dark or at an invisible creature, hopin you hit, as you do with a targeted spell. Intervening creatures and obstacles, however, can block your shot or provide cover for the creature you're aiming at."

RC pg 80-81

"Line of Effect

A solid barrier cancels line of effect. Fog, darkness, and other factors that limit normal sight don't blcok line of effect.

You must have liine fo effect to any target that you cast a spell on or to any space in which you wish to create an effect.

Line if Sight

If you can't see the target, such as due to being blinded or the target's invisibility, you can't have line of sight to it even if you could draw an unblocked line between your space and the target's.

If line of sight to a target is completely blocked, you can't cast spells or use other abilities that require line of sight to the target. When line of sight is blocked by something that doesn't otherwise physcially block or prevent an attack that doesn't require line of sight (such as fog), you can still make that attack, but your target is treated as if it were invisible. If line of sight is partially blocked, such as by the corner of a building, attacks work normally, but the target's AC increases due to cover."


Empirate has it correct.

Acid arrow is an effect that produces an arrow that is then treated as a ray for the attack.

 

[radmod]

I think I'm doing a really bad job of explaining my POV. I should have properly recapped.

I'm not saying that the various interpretations of Acid Arrow are wrong. In fact, the way I've been playing it is essentially the ways mentioned (basically a ray is an extension of the person so therefore you can target them as if you could touch them - something I don't remember reading in the PHB but is mentioned in the RC).

The contention is, and has always been, that some spells list target in the descriptive text without having a target line (or even being a ray). The PHB lists 'target' only in reference to the target line, but the RC, by strict RAW, says otherwise. I have always ruled a 'target' is a target, despite a Target line.
The reason for this contention was that I had to adjudicate such a spell a long time ago and an argument broke out. I ruled that the spell could not be targeted since you had to have LOS, but a ray (as I said I did in my original post) could be (you just suffered the concealment penalty). I wish, for the life of me, I could remember what the spell was.

 

[Vegepygmy]

The contention is, and has always been, that some spells list target in the descriptive text without having a target line (or even being a ray).

My contention is that a ray spell is, by definition, not a targeted spell. It is an effect spell.

The PHB lists 'target' only in reference to the target line, but the RC, by strict RAW, says otherwise.

Just because a spell's description includes the descriptive text, does not mean that its designation as a targeted, effect, or area spell cannot be made exclusively by including a Target, Effect, or Area line in the spell description. By including an "Effect: One arrow of acid" line, the authors are telling us that even though the word "target" may appear elsewhere in the spell description, this is an effect spell, and not a targeted spell. Your "strict RAW" interpretation of the Rules Compendium is, um...flawed.

I have always ruled a 'target' is a target, despite a Target line.
The reason for this contention was that I had to adjudicate such a spell a long time ago and an argument broke out. I ruled that the spell could not be targeted since you had to have LOS, but a ray (as I said I did in my original post) could be (you just suffered the concealment penalty). I wish, for the life of me, I could remember what the spell was.

I do, too, because I'll bet that unless it was a non-core spell (presumably written by someone with an imperfect grasp of the rules), all you really needed to know in order to correctly adjudicate the spell was whether it had a Target, Effect, or Area line.