Obscuring Mist and line of sight when casting spells

[Olaf the Stout]

This situation came up last session. I'm the GM.

The bad guy cast Obscuring Mist. The effect of it is:

A misty vapor arises around you. It is stationary once created. The vapor obscures all sight, including darkvision, beyond 5 feet. A creature 5 feet away has concealment (attacks have a 20% miss chance). Creatures farther away have total concealment (50% miss chance, and the attacker cannot use sight to locate the target).

The next round the Cleric tried to cast Hold Person on the bad guy. He was about 25 feet away from him. Since it targets a specific person and the bad guy had total concealment I ruled that he couldn't cast the spell and let him do something else instead. I checked the PHB afterwards and the only bit I could find that was relevant was this

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.

It seemed plausible for the situation and everyone was happy with the ruling. It got me thinking about concealment and cover and what effect it has on spells like Hold Person that target specific people but don't require an attack roll. I would like to sort it out before I have to make an ad-hoc ruling on it again.Do you still roll the miss chance in this situation? I'm not sure.

What are people's opinions on this type of situation?

Olaf the Stout

 

[Jack Simth]

If it's targetted, (such as Hold Person) then partial cover or partial concealment does nothing (no attack roll, no miss chance).

Full cover breaks line of effect (except in special cases, such as a Tower Shield used for full cover) and so you can't cast Hold Person on the target. Fortunately, Full Cover is usually both ways.

Full Concealment means you can't see the target. Thus, no Hold Person.

Or at least that's my current interpertation based on the fragments I remember.

 

[Vegepygmy]

What Jack said.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Right.

If you're 25 feet away, you can't touch the target. If he's more than 5 feet from you in the Obscuring Mist, you can't see the target. If you can't see or touch the target, you can't cast a targeted spell.

-Hyp.

 

[Joshua Randall]

obscuring mist: the poor-man's invisibility

 

[moritheil]

Of course, a fireball is generally the proper answer to obscuring mist, so at higher levels, it's really not as useful as invisibility.

 

[Olaf the Stout]

Those answers seem reasonable enough for my liking. I'm happy to see that I handled it correctly the first time around. What would you do then if a PC wanted to just "aim" the spell at a square and was happy to take the 50% chance that they miss. I would just rule that they can't do it and get them to choose another action. What are others thoughts?

It hasn't happened so far but I could see that as a reasonable question. Can you cast hold person on an invisible creature? I would think not but I could be wrong.

Olaf the Stout

 

[frankthedm]

It hasn't happened so far but I could see that as a reasonable question. Can you cast hold person on an invisible creature? Olaf the Stout

Nope.

 

[MatthewJHanson]

What would you do then if a PC wanted to just "aim" the spell at a square and was happy to take the 50% chance that they miss. I would just rule that they can't do it and get them to choose another action.

They couldn't with a targeted spell, but rays and the like can be aimed at a square where there may or may not be a creature.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Can you cast hold person on an invisible creature?

Only if you can see or touch him.

-Hyp.