Magic Targeting Square vs Concealment

[gleead]

I recently DM'd a scenario wherein a warlock combatant used miasmic cloud in an attempt to cover his escape and on the following turn a druid combatant outside the effect of the miasmic cloud used an action to activate call lightning which she had cast a few turns prior. An argument ensued as to whether or not the druid had to roll a miss chance against the warlock. In hindsight I realize that I had erroneously compared miasmic cloud's fog effect with that of the spell fog cloud regarding concealment granted when making my ruling; I have since re-read miasmic cloud and see that its fog is much less pronounced and cannot grant total concealment, rendering the above specific scenario moot.

However, that got me thinking of a similar hypothetical scenario:

Defender has total concealment from some legitimate source (be it fog cloud or invisibility or whatever) and is medium size. Attacker has spell which targets one 5-ft. square and targets the square which Defender occupies (either by luckily guessing or using some other means of location detection). Does Attacker have to roll a 50% miss chance to hit Defender?

I guess I'm just confused about the wording of total concealment. Is its miss chance only granted to attacks which require rolls (seemingly the context of the entire Concealment section), or does it also apply to attacks which target a square (or range of squares)?

Thanks!

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Defender has total concealment from some legitimate source (be it fog cloud or invisibility or whatever) and is medium size. Attacker has spell which targets one 5-ft. square and targets the square which Defender occupies (either by luckily guessing or using some other means of location detection). Does Attacker have to roll a 50% miss chance to hit Defender?

I guess I'm just confused about the wording of total concealment. Is its miss chance only granted to attacks which require rolls (seemingly the context of the entire Concealment section), or does it also apply to attacks which target a square (or range of squares)?

I believe the intended wording is referring to weapon attacks or other attack forms which require a to-hit roll. The spell requires no hit roll - just a saving throw. The magic doesn't care how invisible you are if its effect is covering the entire square you're in.

 

[Vegepygmy]

I guess I'm just confused about the wording of total concealment. Is its miss chance only granted to attacks which require rolls (seemingly the context of the entire Concealment section), or does it also apply to attacks which target a square (or range of squares)?

Miss chances apply only when there is an attack roll. Since you do not make an attack roll for call lightning, there is no miss chance, either.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Miss chances apply only when there is an attack roll. Since you do not make an attack roll for call lightning, there is no miss chance, either.

On the other hand... if a foe is invisible or has some other form of total (50%) concealment, you can't use targeted spells (ie, the ones where you simply choose who it affects, no attack roll or area) on him. However, if you think he's in X square, you can still use a melee or ranged touch spell (a "weapon-like" spell, one that requires an attack roll) into that square and roll the miss chance and potentialy hit if he's actually there.

 

[radmod]

However, if you think he's in X square, you can still use a ... ranged touch spell (a "weapon-like" spell, one that requires an attack roll) into that square and roll the miss chance and potentialy hit if he's actually there.

I'm not so sure of that because I'm not sure what you mean by "weapon-like". From the SRD:

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.

So Melf's Acid Arrow does not work, nor would Magic Missile. I'm not sure that even Spiritual Weapon would work by RAW (since you have to designate a target). Of course, I would probably allow that anyway.

 

[Vegepygmy]

I'm not so sure of that because I'm not sure what you mean by "weapon-like".

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

So Melf's Acid Arrow does not work...

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.

...nor would Magic Missile.

Here you are correct, because magic missile is a targeted spell. "Targets: Up to five creatures, no two of which can be more than 15 ft. apart." Thus, you must be able to see or touch your enemy to target him with magic missile.

I'm not sure that even Spiritual Weapon would work by RAW (since you have to designate a target).

It works fine by RAW; spiritual weapon is not a targeted spell. It creates an effect ("Magic weapon of force"), and that effect then makes attack rolls.

 

[gleead]

Ah, I understand now; thanks to all for helping to clarify. I was starting to get a general sense of what everyone has said but I wanted to make sure I wasn't overanalyzing it (turns out I was ).

Attack roll > total concealment grants miss chance
Targeted spell > ineffective against totally concealed "targets"
Square/AoE spell > total concealment grants no benefits

 

[radmod]

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

Sorry, but no. I know exactly what a "targeted spell" is. The problem is in exactly what is a 'target'. See below.

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.

Correct. 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.
Yet, as you mentioned it is indeed an effect. An effect can be designated to appear in a specific location. In the case of Melf's, one can choose the square as the target, hence you could use it. At least, I can't see a DM not allowing you to blanket a space with Melf's.

It works fine by RAW; spiritual weapon is not a targeted spell. It creates an effect ("Magic weapon of force"), and that effect then makes attack rolls.

Like Melf's, SW is an effect and so you could target a space. Likewise, I can't see a DM not allowing it.

It really comes down to how one defines 'target'. There are two equally viable options:
1) The whole "you must be able to see" a target is specifically delineated in the section in regards to the "Target" line. Therefore, this definition of target only applies to a target specifically listed in the 'Target' line. Elsewhere, target is not specifically defined except as an "intended recipient."
2) Regardless of where it is written, a target is defined as something you can see. Therefore, if you can't see a target, anywhere it says you have to have a target, you do not have a target if you can't see it.

Now, I use to follow #1. Then, because of some circumstance I've long forgotten, I discovered that #2 was necessary and essentially had the same effect as #1. (I'm presuming it was because of some effect that should/should not work against a target, but did not/did.)

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

I like C.Arcane for clearing up exactly what it means to be a "weapon-like" spell, any spell that uses an attack roll basically. They're treated like any other weapon for many issues. If you shoot an arrow at an invisible creature because you think he's in that square, you're allowed to try. He may be the "target" of your attack, but that's not the same thing as targeting him with Charm Person. The issue is confusing the general usage of the word target with the specifically defined usage for targeted spells (ones that have a "Target" entry in the spell parameters crunch).

 

[frankthedm]

Like Melf's, SW is an effect and so you could target a space. Likewise, I can't see a DM not allowing it.

Well, if the target square is what causes full concealment, the spiritual weapon would just return to the caster after wasting his move action.

If the weapon goes beyond the spell range, if it goes out of your sight, or if you are not directing it, the weapon returns to you and hovers.