Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="radmod" data-source="post: 5369226" data-attributes="member: 93008">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&nbsp; 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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="radmod, post: 5369226, member: 93008"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification