Targeting into Concealment

[green slime]

Now, under this ruling, we don't have the problem irdeggman outlined, namely "If the targeted creature is not affected by the darkness then it is possible for this to work since it could discern which creature is specifically 'its new friend'."

You can discern which creature is your new friend, because it's the voice you feel the strange compulsion to agree with...

Otherwise, you've got a defence against Charm Person. If you fail your save, close your eyes!

"I command you to tell me the secret password!"
"I don't know who you are."
"But you're my friend!"
"How do I know that?"
"Open your eyes! I command you to open your eyes!"
"I don't know who you are."

-Hyp.

True.

with regards to the other business, ranged spells ("Close", "Medium", or "Long") while they may be delivered by touch are definitly not "Touch" spells. Spells with a range of "Touch" are in a special category all of their own, just as "Personal" spells may be delivered by touch (to yourself or your animal companion/familiar) and yet are not treated as "Touch" spells.

However... What happens when you are under the influence of a magic jar? Which you is you for "Personal" spells? Your body or your mind/soul? Both? Is this reason to memorise Reach Shield?

 

[irdeggman]

Just knowing the square isn't enough, true.

We know from the rules for targeted spells that you must be able to see or touch the target.

When Chris says "if you cannot see, you cannot target", he's almost right. If he'd said "if you cannot see or touch, you cannot target", he would have been following what's written in the rules for targeted spells.

If you had to answer Ryan's question just using the PHB, you can quite happily say "No, you can't target him". And you can show the rule that prevents it - "You must be able to see or touch the target".

But if Ryan comes back with "I'm holding the invisible sorcerer's hand", there is no longer a rule in the PHB that prevents him targeting the sorcerer. He fulfils the requirement than "You must be able to see or touch the target".

-Hyp.

Or maybe we are reading more into ranges of spells than is written there.

It doesn't state that the distance ranged spells (close, medium, etc.) can actually be delivered by touch. We (or at least some of us) are reading the text of distance as refering to any range (including touch) that is less than. What if the actual meaning was supposed to be a physical distance (as in feet or the like) and that touch is a no distance spell and thus isn't supposed to fall under that criteria?

 

[Hypersmurf]

It doesn't state that the distance ranged spells (close, medium, etc.) can actually be delivered by touch. We (or at least some of us) are reading the text of distance as refering to any range (including touch) that is less than. What if the actual meaning was supposed to be a physical distance (as in feet or the like) and that touch is a no distance spell and thus isn't supposed to fall under that criteria?

Are you saying that, with an appropriate Concentration check, I can't cast a Stilled Magic Missile on a creature who is grappling me, because he's too close?

-Hyp.

 

[irdeggman]

Are you saying that, with an appropriate Concentration check, I can't cast a Stilled Magic Missile on a creature who is grappling me, because he's too close?

-Hyp.

The rules aren't actually crystal clear here. Which is what I guess we have been alluding to. We have been basing our arguements on different assumptions.

Distance isn't the actual issue here. What the rules may be saying (as seemingly backed up by the Question of the day) is that touch is not a "distance" so spells having an actual range (measured in feet) don't translate into a "touch" equivalent.

Now if this specific question is asked and answered by the powers that be at WotC it may actually clear up a lot of issues. (I sure hope those powers that be aren't Cust Serv though).

 

[Hypersmurf]

Distance isn't the actual issue here. What the rules may be saying (as seemingly backed up by the Question of the day) is that touch is not a "distance" so spells having an actual range (measured in feet) don't translate into a "touch" equivalent.

I'm not trying to translate it into a 'touch' equivalent. I'm casting it at a creature within Short range. That creature is one I'm touching, but that has nothing to do with the range.

-Hyp.

 

[irdeggman]

I'm not trying to translate it into a 'touch' equivalent. I'm casting it at a creature within Short range. That creature is one I'm touching, but that has nothing to do with the range.

-Hyp.

You are saying that a range of 0 ft (i.e., touch) is a distance.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Distance isn't the actual issue here. What the rules may be saying (as seemingly backed up by the Question of the day) is that touch is not a "distance" so spells having an actual range (measured in feet) don't translate into a "touch" equivalent.

Forget Range: Touch spells exist. Completely don't think about them. Pretend that there is no such thing as a Range: Touch spell in the game of D&D, and that all Range: Touch spells are gone, completely and utterly.

Now, we have hold person, and the caster is blind. He needs to know exactly where the enemy is to cast the spell on him. Normally, he wouldn't be blind and he could cast the spell on anyone he sees, but since the BBEG cast blindness on him, he now can't see a thing.

He now has to rely on another means to know where the enemy is. Now, he knows that there are minions beside, him, he has made a Listen check to pinpoint which square one of them is in! So he's half there. He still can't target the enemy because he doesn't have an exact location. To do that, he needs to touch them.

Why? Because of the clause provided above. See, since he can't see them, he needs some other way of knowing exactly where the enemy is to cast a spell on them. So he feels around him, trying to find the enemy who he knows is there. To do so, the DM rules that he has to make a touch attack against the enemy and suffer the 50% miss chance since he's blind.

Luckily he makes the roll! He bumps into the enemy, getting solid proof of his exact location! When he does so, he casts his spell, using that location as the spot for his target to affect. He casts hold person and affects the target he found through touch, the guy fails his Will save, and now he doesn't have to worry about the adjacent foe... for the time being at least.

See? It has absolutely nothing to do with Range: Touch spells. It is just like seeing the opponent, a way to find their location on the battlefield. He didn't cast the spell through the touch. He used the touch as a means of locating the enemy. That is what the rule is about.

 

[irdeggman]

Forget Range: Touch spells exist. Completely don't think about them. Pretend that there is no such thing as a Range: Touch spell in the game of D&D, and that all Range: Touch spells are gone, completely and utterly.

OK now what?

Now, we have hold person, and the caster is blind. He needs to know exactly where the enemy is to cast the spell on him. Normally, he wouldn't be blind and he could cast the spell on anyone he sees, but since the BBEG cast blindness on him, he now can't see a thing.

He now has to rely on another means to know where the enemy is. Now, he knows that there are minions beside, him, he has made a Listen check to pinpoint which square one of them is in! So he's half there. He still can't target the enemy because he doesn't have an exact location. To do that, he needs to touch them.

Why?

Seems to me that is supposed to be the benefit of blinding an opponent to prevent him from being able to target you.

Why wouldn't his logic also work with bows?

Why? Because of the clause provided above. See, since he can't see them, he needs some other way of knowing exactly where the enemy is to cast a spell on them. So he feels around him, trying to find the enemy who he knows is there. To do so, the DM rules that he has to make a touch attack against the enemy and suffer the 50% miss chance since he's blind.

Well that 50% rule for non attack rolls doesn't exist.

Luckily he makes the roll! He bumps into the enemy, getting solid proof of his exact location! When he does so, he casts his spell, using that location as the spot for his target to affect. He casts hold person and affects the target he found through touch, the guy fails his Will save, and now he doesn't have to worry about the adjacent foe... for the time being at least.[/quote

So now the caster can "hold" an instanteous spell long enough to "locate" his opponent and then touch him?

See? It has absolutely nothing to do with Range: Touch spells. It is just like seeing the opponent, a way to find their location on the battlefield. He didn't cast the spell through the touch. He used the touch as a means of locating the enemy. That is what the rule is about.

Nope, there doesn't need to be a way to account for this. Certain things are supposed to negate others - it is purely situational.

Like a shield spell always negating a magic missile. That is how it works.

 

[Jhulae]

Seems to me that is supposed to be the benefit of blinding an opponent to prevent him from being able to target you.

Which your opponent can't do.. unless the caster was dumb enough to stand right next to the blinded opponent and not move away.

The RAW is pretty simple. To target something, you need to be able to see or touch it.

And, combat, by it's very nature is abstracted. Who says I'm not touching my opponent *before* I cast the spell.

 

[irdeggman]

Here are some more examples.

Poison Needles From Complete Arcane. Range: close, Target: 1 creature.

Make a normal ranged attack to hit.

So since we are using "touch" as being less than 25 ft (i.e., within the specified range) - what attack roll is made?

Ranged attack or melee one?

How about a dagger. It has a range increment of 10ft. Can you throw it at a target you are "touching" - it is within the 10 ft range?