Does Summoning need line of sight?

[Hypersmurf]

I'm no authority, and I suspect there is a huge variation in the sizes of arrow slits.

But interestingly, the only dimensions I found with a Google search - in a completely non-technical account, but it is at least describing a real English keep - were on this site, which describes a particular arrow slit as being "about two feet tall and about four inches wide".

Which is about two-thirds of a square foot.

So, while there are doubtless many arrow slits out there that you can get line of effect through, it's not guaranteed...

... and it's likely that someone constructing fortifications in D&D-land would take the one-square-foot requirement into consideration when planning his arrowslits.

Slits of below-one-square-foot for your archers, with certain that could be widened with a shutter for when your defending casters wish to cast out at the attackers, for example.

-Hyp.

 

[KarinsDad]

But interestingly, the only dimensions I found with a Google search - in a completely non-technical account, but it is at least describing a real English keep - were on this site, which describes a particular arrow slit as being "about two feet tall and about four inches wide".

Which is about two-thirds of a square foot.

Arrow loops were typically 2 to 4 inches wide and one to four yards tall (with possibly one or more cross slits for crossbows). So yes, there were ones less than one square foot, but many of them were more than a square foot. The reason for the height was so that arrows could be arched for a greater distance.

http://www.castles-of-britain.com/castleso.htm

Hard to tell the size from the following picture, but the various pictures of this castle are cool.

http://www.geocities.com/EnchantedForest/7695/castle27.html

Crossbow loops (and gun loops) were typically a lot smaller and it is possible to confuse those with arrow loops or slits. However, they could be smaller due to the lesser arch of fire of bolts and guns over arrows.

http://www.geocities.com/EnchantedForest/7695/castle23.html

However, here is a picture with significantly taller loops, specifically designed for bows:

http://www.atelierdesdauphins.com/english/forts/bellcomb/ebeldfnc.htm

... and it's likely that someone constructing fortifications in D&D-land would take the one-square-foot requirement into consideration when planning his arrowslits.

Yes, a self fulfilling prophecy. If the game prevents spells with a certain size opening, then the fortifications would match.

 

[haiiro]

Of course! Sorry...momentary seizure of the rules-lawyer side of my brain. Thanks jgsugden and Piratecat.

I'm still not clear on this one -- to me it sounds like you can summon around corners to your heart's content, unless something physically blocks the target point.

One of the players in my campaign used summon monster twice in our last session, and both times the beastie was called up within range but well out of sight (on top of a nearby roof). This didn't seem to cause any problems.

What am I missing?

 

[Hypersmurf]

What am I missing?

Line of effect.

If you could stretch a piece of string from the caster to the point of origin with no bends, curves, or angles, then you have line of effect. Whether or not you can see the point of origin.

But to summon something around a corner, the string would either have to bend, or go through the solid wall... which means you don't have line of effect to that point.

-Hyp.

 

[Vaxalon]

Yes, a self fulfilling prophecy. If the game prevents spells with a certain size opening, then the fortifications would match.

I think someone ought to publish plans for a castle that uses mundane means to foil magic.

 

[haiiro]

Line of effect.

If you could stretch a piece of string from the caster to the point of origin with no bends, curves, or angles, then you have line of effect. Whether or not you can see the point of origin.

But to summon something around a corner, the string would either have to bend, or go through the solid wall... which means you don't have line of effect to that point.

That makes perfect sense -- thanks.

From a logisitical standpoint, though, why not allow summoning around corners? Is there a game balance issue involved?

 

[KarinsDad]

From a logisitical standpoint, though, why not allow summoning around corners? Is there a game balance issue involved?

I think it is a matter of opening up an entire can of worms with regard to spells.

"What do you mean that the villain can summon monsters around the corner to attack me, but my magic missiles cannot go around the corner to attack him?"

It is a matter of "where do you draw the line?" (pun intended).

In some games (and even in earlier versions of DND I think), the designers made it "line of sight" which was even more restrictive.

"Line of effect" is more beneficial for spell casters than for non-spell casters than "line of sight". Hence, it is an improvement for spell casters.

Now that we have "line of effect", it is not surprising that some people are now considering "curved line of effect".

 

[Nail]

From a logisitical standpoint, though, why not allow summoning around corners? Is there a game balance issue involved?

Yup. Monster Summoning (or any kind of calling or summoning) is already quite effective. (Ask my fellow rogue 'bout that.) Now yer gonna allow that where the mage can't normally see or get to? Ouch.

More to the point, it's simpler this way. If you allow summoning around corners, you'd be asked about fireballs, sleep spells, flame strike..... In this case, a consistent rule set for spells is a good thing(tm).

(Also: limiting magic to Line of Effect allows mundane means of limiting spell casting. That's also a good thing(tm).)

 

[KarinsDad]

Now yer gonna allow that where the mage can't normally see or get to? Ouch.

Actually with Line of Effect, the wizard can already summon creatures to where he cannot see.

 

[Nail]

Actually with Line of Effect, the wizard can already summon creatures to where he cannot see.

Right...but let's not quibble about the meaning of the word "normally", shall we?