Questions on "Sight" Spells, and Ready Spell Action

[Ovinomancer]

But casting Misty Step would prevent you from casting another spell as an Action (using Ready) or as a Reaction (unleashing the readied spell) on your turn. It doesn't even matter whether or not readying a spell is using the Action or Reaction to cast it, casting Misty Step beforehand would prevent the casting of another spell.

You're not casting the spell when you release the readied action, technically. That said, I don't see how by RAW you can hold a readied spell past the beginning of your next turn to use this tidbit. It's a bit of a grey area (not entirely clear either way and with some previous edition baggage) for rulings, though. Personally, I'd allow hold the spell over to the next round at the cost of using a Cast A Spell action to renew it. That still would prevent the bonus action casting, so....

 

[5ekyu]

But casting Misty Step would prevent you from casting another spell as an Action (using Ready) or as a Reaction (unleashing the readied spell) on your turn. It doesn't even matter whether or not readying a spell is using the Action or Reaction to cast it, casting Misty Step beforehand would prevent the casting of another spell.

Unless that other spell was a cantrip with a cast of 1 Action.

 

[WaterRabbit]

When facing enemy casters, readying a spell beforehand is a good way to avoid a counterspell. You could always just cast the spell as normal and counterspell their counterspell, or stay out of range, but I am just toying with possible anti-caster strategies from a wizard's perspective here.

I stand corrected about the ready action. However, I still don't understand why you think this is a counterspell strategy. If you are in range of the enemy caster (60 feet) they can still counterspell you unless they have already used their reaction.

 

[5ekyu]

I stand corrected about the ready action. However, I still don't understand why you think this is a counterspell strategy. If you are in range of the enemy caster (60 feet) they can still counterspell you unless they have already used their reaction.

Example
On my turn i either am or move 5' to get out of sight of enemy spellcaster.
I ready/cast firebolt with my action, ready trigger is i get the enemy in range and sight.

That ready/cast out of their sight is the casting of the spell, the only point it can be counterspelled.

At the same turn i turn the corner concentrating on my spell with the rest of my movement. I see/get the enemy in range then i release the firebolt.
That moment of release is not casting and cannot get counterspelled.

So, when it was casting and could be a trigger to counterspelled, it wasnt seen being cast - so no counterspell.

The risk is that between ready and release you take damage or other concentration loss.

Also, of course, you cannot be sustaining other concentrations so you are essentially choosing to *use* concentration (and dome movement) not for ongoing effects but for defense using terrain to prevent counterspell.

 

[BluejayJunior]

You're not casting the spell when you release the readied action, technically. That said, I don't see how by RAW you can hold a readied spell past the beginning of your next turn to use this tidbit. It's a bit of a grey area (not entirely clear either way and with some previous edition baggage) for rulings, though. Personally, I'd allow hold the spell over to the next round at the cost of using a Cast A Spell action to renew it. That still would prevent the bonus action casting, so....

Well the scenario outlined was Ready a spell, misty step next to an enemy, and release the spell all in the same turn. So unless you're readying a cantrip, you would not be able to cast Misty Step to get next to the enemy. I was merely stating that whether you consider the Readying or the Reaction as the casting (and I'm pretty sure it should be the Readying that counts as casting), you would not be able to pull off this combo on the same turn due to the Misty Step spell being a bonus action. But we seem to agree that the combo cannot be used like this.
I agree that you can't hold a readied spell past your turn. The rules clearly state that if the Readied action hasn't been used by your turn, then the action is wasted. Meaning the spell would then fizzle out. But using an action to maintain it would be a reasonable ruling.

 

[aco175]

I like the idea, it is a good use for a familiar. Not many in my games use a familiar since they always seem to die back in 2e days. Not sure if I would allow it since it seems to bypass line of sight, even though you quoted the point that it allows you to see through the eyes of the familiar.

I have let people teleport through windows to places they can see, but I keep trying to break it by thinking about would it work through a lead wall or to the astral plane if the familiar was within 30ft. I guess I would in the end to allow the yes option and move on.

 

[Harzel]

Hey guys, I had a few things that I needed clarified for my wizard. The main confusion I am having comes from when a spell says something along the lines of, "... A place you can see". Here are two examples;

Misty step - "Briefly surrounded by silvery mist, you teleport up to 30 feet to an unoccupied space that you can see."


Dominate Person - "You attempt to beguile a humanoid that you can see within range."

So my question to you all is this; if you are using something besides your own personal senses, such as looking through the eyes of a familiar, can you still cast those spells even if you cannot personally see the target/location?

For example; you are leaning against a tavern wall on the outside, and your cat familiar is inside the tavern. You are looking through its eyes. Could you Misty Step to any spot within 30 feet of yourself, using your familiars senses? Likewise, could you Dominate Person on somebody you cannot see, but your familiar can?

Next question; to make full use of your action economy could you ready a spell (say plane shift, with the trigger being whenever you appear beside a target you release the spell), run into the room using your 30 foot movement, bonus action misty step across the room to your target, then trigger your readied reaction?

With respect to your first question, there are enough nuances and exceptions that really each individual spell requires case-by-case analysis; there is no blanket rule. So your two examples can be analyzed (with respect to RAW), but that won't provide a general answer. Amongst the considerations are these:

1. What does the spell description specify (or, in some cases, imply) is the target of the spell? Examples: For Misty Step, the target is self; for Dominate Person it is the humanoid; for Dimension Door it is the place you are teleporting to.
2. The general rule that you must have a "clear path" to the target.
3. Whether the spell description provides an exception to #2 (sometimes implicitly). Example: Crawford says the first paragraph of the description of Dimension Door is a "long-winded exception" to the general "clear path" rule.
4. Does the "that you can see" apply to the target of the spell or something else? If the target, then (in the absence of an exception) you need a "clear path" to and to be able to see the target. If it's something else (like the destination of Misty Step, which is not the target), then you only need to be able to see it (by whatever means).

So here's how it appears to me that RAW shakes out for your examples:

• Misty Step: Unless there is some circumstantial problem with having a clear path to yourself, you can teleport to anyplace in range that you can see, by whatever means - your own sight, a familiar, a scrying device, etc.
• Dominate Person: You need a clear path to and to be able to see the target, which is the humanoid you are attempting to affect.
  • So, if a wall stands between you and the humanoid, then the humanoid is not a valid target, even if you can somehow see them.
  • However, if you are in the middle of a darkness spell (and so cannot see the humanoid), but the humanoid and your familiar are outside the darkness, and you can see the humanoid through the familiar's sight, and there are no physical obstacles between you and the humanoid, and the humanoid is within range (60') from you, then you could cast the spell on them.

 

[Volund]

With regard to the tactic of readying a spell out of sight, and then running into a room to release it without the threat of a counterspell, there is Sage Advice on this: https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/09/15/is-it-too-late-to-counter-a-readied-spell-that-has-been-triggered/.

If we agree that:
1) the targeting rules require a line of sight
2) a target in another room that you can only see via a familiar has total cover and therefore can't be targeted
3) since you are using your action to see with the familiar then the attack has to be a bonus action,

then the only way I can think of to target a creature with a spell while using a familiar's eyes would be a sorcerer with a familiar (requires a feat for PC's) and the Sacred Flame cantrip since it ignores total cover. A Divine Soul sorcerer, or a cleric/sorcerer, who could see a target with a familiar could use quickened metamagic to cast Sacred Flame as a bonus action.

As a DM, even though it's not RAW with regard to a line of sight to a target, I want to allow sorcerers who have a familiar to use quickened metamagic to cast spells that affect "a target you can see within range" while using an action to see through their familiar's eyes. I love the swords and sorcery feel of this, where living in a world of sinister arcane magic would cause you to experience constant paranoia. That cat in the corner, that rat in the alley, that spider on the wall - any creature you see could be a sorcerer spying on you to potentially cast a spell on you. I might use this on my players at some point.

 

[Harzel]

If we agree that:
1) the targeting rules require a line of sight
2) a target in another room that you can only see via a familiar has total cover and therefore can't be targeted

If you are talking about the general targeting rule (as opposed to the description of a particular spell), what is required is a "clear path", which is not the same as "line of sight" (at least the way I understand the phrase "line of sight"). You can have "line of sight" to something on the other side of a Wall of Force, but you don't have a clear path to it, so it cannot be a spell target. Conversely, heavy fog might block line of sight, but you could still target something in the fog provided that there was not something like a wall between you and it and the particular spell did not require a target that you can see.

Maybe, though, I misunderstand what you mean by "line of sight".

Or maybe you only intended to address spells that require a visible target?

 

[Volund]

Maybe, though, I misunderstand what you mean by "line of sight".

I should have said "clear path" since that is the language in the PHB. Line of sight is not really correct since you can target creatures you can't see as long as there is a clear path. In fact, this line of sight vs clear path debate came up at a table I was playing at during an AL epic earlier this year. Player A (not me) wants to eldritch blast a wizard who had just turned invisible. Player B (also not me) pipes up with "You can't target invisible creatures with spell attacks. You have to be able to see your target." and the DM says, "Oh yeah, that's right." When I objected and asked for a page reference in the PHB, player B again, for some reason running the game now, reads the spell targeting rule and says that having a clear path implies that you have to be able to see it. It didn't affect the outcome of the encounter but I felt bad for the warlock player who was left with nothing to do.