Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 258525" data-attributes="member: 2011">Several points on this Caliban:1) I am currently the DM. I do not have a character per se. So, I am not min-maxing with my opinion here for a given character.2) Any rule in the game that applies to spells typically applies the same for PCs as NPCs (unless it is spells that PCs do not have access to).3) The targeting spell rules are inconsistent with the ray spell rules and the missile rules. I live with that, but I do not have to extrapolate what I consider inconsistent rules into an area of the game that does not have a rule.4) I think both your interpretation and my interpretation are fine. Both allow people to play the game and have fun. Yours is consistent with the targeting rules. Mine is consistent with the other dispeling and countering rules.5) When the intent (poor as it may be) of the targeting rules is X for creatures and objects, it probably should be X for spells. However, when the intent of Dispels is to dispel any spell that characters are aware of (and even ones they are not aware of), I do not think that the only criteria should be spell visibility. I think the same for the other targeting rules, but there I have to put in a house rule as opposed to an adjudication.6) Getting back to the subject of Invisibility and why I dislike the targeting rules, Invisibility is a 50% miss chance for ray spells and missiles. It is an unknown miss chance for Area of Effect spells (since you either have to detect the invisible character in some manner, or you have to get lucky). It is a 100% miss chance for targeted spells. As we have had in numerous conversations, I dislike 100% absolutes in the game. Invisibility (and it's worse bigger brother Improved Invisibility) are combined Invisibilty and Immunity to Targeted Spells. A single second level Invisibilty spell is approximately as protective versus spells as a Globe of Invulnerability since the list of targeted spells in the book is probably 50% or more. I personally do not like this, but that's the rule. If you know exactly where an invisible opponent is located (and that is typically hard to do in the game), a 50% miss chance for concealment would be a much better rule and consistent with the Ray and Missile targeting rules. IMO.So, in any rules discussion about a rule that does not exist, yes we should consider other similar rules. But, we should not be slaves to that to the point that we close our minds to better rules, especially when the similar rules are inferior. Again, IMO.</blockquote>

Verification