Pinpointing an opponent, enough to target a spell?

[Arravis]

If I can pinpoint an invisible opponent either through a skill (listen) or through a feat such as Hear the Unseen, is that enough to target the invisible opponent so I can cast a range spell on him such as magic missile? Thanks guys!

 

[irdeggman]

No.

A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Spot check. The observer gains a hunch that “something’s there” but can’t see it or target it accurately with an attack. A creature who is holding still is very hard to notice (DC 30). An inanimate object, an unliving creature holding still, or a completely immobile creature is even harder to spot (DC 40). It’s practically impossible (+20 DC) to pinpoint an invisible creature’s location with a Spot check, and even if a character succeeds on such a check, the invisible creature still benefits from total concealment (50% miss chance).

Target or Targets: 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.

You must be able to "see" or "touch" the target. Pinpointing doesn't allow you to see the target, especially since he has total concealment.

 

[RigaMortus2]

No.

You must be able to "see" or "touch" the target. Pinpointing doesn't allow you to see the target, especially since he has total concealment.

But it does allow you to know where he is, and that allows you to touch them, or at least gives you enough information to attempt to touch him. Or to put it another, invisiblility doesn't prevent you from touching a target, it just makes it harder to do so.

I say it depends on the spell. For Magic Missile, you need to see them, for Acid Arrow you can fire at the invisible target with the appropriate miss chances.

 

[irdeggman]

But it does allow you to know where he is, and that allows you to touch them, or at least gives you enough information to attempt to touch him. Or to put it another, invisiblility doesn't prevent you from touching a target, it just makes it harder to do so.

I say it depends on the spell. For Magic Missile, you need to see them, for Acid Arrow you can fire at the invisible target with the appropriate miss chances.

And I would agree with this.

IMO spells that fall under the category of weapon-like spells should likewise fall under the rules for weapons in this regard.

Acid Arrow is a weapon like spell, while Magic Missile is not.

 

[Hypersmurf]

IMO spells that fall under the category of weapon-like spells should likewise fall under the rules for weapons in this regard.

Acid Arrow is a weapon like spell, while Magic Missile is not.

Well, Acid Arrow doesn't have a Target, it has an Effect, so the rules for Targets aren't applicable.

If Acid Arrow had the same text, but "Target: one creature" instead of an Effect entry, you'd need to see or touch the creature to hit them with it.

-Hyp.

 

[ceratitis]

bear in mind knowing where an invisble target is does allow you to use area spell effects on him which may let you target him after like... blow flower at him, grease (if he isnt flying ,turn stone to mud (see foot prints) ,slice him up and watch the blood drip, entangle, throw a net at him ect...
btw-would you treat a ray spell as a weapon like effect? you do roll attack but it usually says you need to see the target.
Z

 

[Bront]

The only way would be if the effect would be one that replaces or substitutes for vision (IE, one that allows you to use that sense as a targeting sense). Echolocation would allow you to target an underwater invisable opponent for example (but would be useless if the area was silenced)

 

[shilsen]

btw-would you treat a ray spell as a weapon like effect? you do roll attack but it usually says you need to see the target.
Z

Yes, ray spells are weapon-like spells (Complete Arcane has some info on this). You could fire a ray into the square where you think the person is in and, if you're correct, you'd have a 50% miss chance.

This is another place where True Strike is really valuable. As long as you're firing into the right location, it eliminates the miss chance .

 

[ceratitis]

so thats why they call it insight bonus
but if you have a 50% chance to miss why would a +20 to hit cancel it? or does the spell discription says so (no books with me)?
Z

 

[Hypersmurf]

but if you have a 50% chance to miss why would a +20 to hit cancel it? or does the spell discription says so (no books with me)?

True Strike has two effects - attack bonus, and ignoring miss chances due to concealment.

-Hyp.