Is there errata for the Nightmare spell PHB p.232

[JacktheRabbit]

The old Voodo Doll mentality. I like that.

Yep. An interesting house rule might be to require a "personal" item from your target be used as a focus or material component rather than naming or "specifically designating" them. That would be fun...the liche sends a minion in to steal a lock of your hair or some such...that night you get these terrible nightmares...

 

[Xarlen]

The one with the item creation feat.

So it's doable, then.

 

[Moleculo]

wouldnt that suck if the lich dimensional anchored you?? no rope trick!

 

[Darkness]

*sigh* I really hate debate things like range: unlimited vs. line of effect, but y'all made me curious with your bickering, so I'll give it a shot.

*thumbs through his PHB until he reaches page 148*

*starts reading the "Casting a Spell" section closely*

Okay... Let's see what we have here...

Range: Unlimited.

Aiming a spell...

Target: One living creature.

Okay... The appropriate section says, "You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target." (The oft-quoted "line of effect.")

So far, so good. In the spell description is mentioned, "You send a hideous and unsettling phantasmal vision to a specific creature whom you name or otherwise specifically designate."

Which is of course the point of contention here. Now, this phrase can be interpreted in several ways - but which is the correct one?

*starts thumbing through his PHB again*

Okay - nothing here. Well, now, to my chagrin, I have to admit that I don't think that the phrase at the start of the spell description supersedes the general rule. Thus, you'll have to see or touch the target. But that, of course, makes the spell nearly useless.

Sorry that I couldn't add more to this discussion than a summary and my own opinion...

 

[Uller]

We could point out that "only" is your addition to the written rules

I disagree. The general rule is to be used in the absence of the specific, not in addition to. Since the spell tells you specifically _how_ to aim the spell("name or specifically designate" the target), the general rule for aiming spells(must have line of sight) is no longer relevant.

Another example: Undead ALWAYS succeed fort saves. A mace of disruption destroys undead who fail a fort save...is this a contradiction or oversight in the rules? No. Mace of Disruption is a specific case where undead do not automatically succeed fort saves(Either the sage answered this or it was discussed here and Monte answered it...I can't remember).

 

[Uller]

[BWhich is of course the point of contention here. Now, this phrase can be interpreted in several ways - but which is the correct one?
[/B]

I don't see several ways that you can interprit "names or specifically designates". I see one. You name or specifically designate the target.

Are you saying that the ONLY way to supercede a general rule is to say something to the effect of "the caster does not have to see the target"?

I suppose that Discern Location or Whispering Wind require line of effect to work as well since they don't specificly say that you don't have to see your target...

 

[Hypersmurf]

I suppose that Discern Location or Whispering Wind require line of effect to work as well since they don't specificly say that you don't have to see your target...

Whispering Wind doesn't seem to be a problem, since the point of origin of the effect appears to be nearby, and then it travels out to the limit of the range.

Discern Location could definitely use an extra line in the spell description to prevent problems

-Hyp.

 

[Uller]

Whispering Wind doesn't seem to be a problem, since the point of origin of the effect appears to be nearby, and then it travels out to the limit of the range.

Discern Location could definitely use an extra line in the spell description to prevent problems

Or we can just think for ourselves and understand that these cases supercede the general rule.

 

[FANGO]

So, say my character likes to sleep with his blanket over his head...does this give him 100% concealment? Does this mean he can't be affected by nightmare? Or maybe he likes to sleep in a tent or something...also immune?

I really don't think line of effect applies here. See the "discern location"/think for yourselves argument.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Or we can just think for ourselves and understand that these cases supercede the general rule.

Think for... ourselves?

Eek! That's the first step on the road to... House Rules!

And next you know, my beautiful Harm spell stops working, for no reason at all!



-Hyp.