Targeting spells & concealment

[Nvvyn]

perhaps I should just make a new thread for this question

 

[drowdude]

What if a mage has blur cast on himself, and another mage is casting a ranged touch attack. Does the attacking mage then have a 20% chance to miss with the ranged touch attach? that seems more viable to me

Indeed he does suffer the 20% miss chance, since more than line-of-sight is required to target.

 

[drowdude]

Ok, answer me this..... If a mage is invisible, and you don't have see invisibility, can you target the mage with a spell? for example magic missle, or a ranged touch attack like melfs acid arrow? do u get any kind of miss chance?

If you cant see an opponent, you cant target them with Magic Missile, since it requires you to be able to actually see the opponent... on a ranged touch however, you would use the normal rules for attacking an invisible opponent (guess the square/50% miss chance).

 

[AGGEMAM]

Ok, answer me this..... If a mage is invisible, and you don't have see invisibility, can you target the mage with a spell? for example magic missle, or a ranged touch attack like melfs acid arrow? do u get any kind of miss chance?

Ok, I'm going back to those simple phrases, sorry:

NO SEE -> NO TARGET -> NO SPELL

 

[Artoomis]

Ok, answer me this..... If a mage is invisible, and you don't have see invisibility, can you target the mage with a spell? for example magic missle, or a ranged touch attack like melfs acid arrow? do u get any kind of miss chance?

I'd certainly allow a 50% miss chance as usual (guess the square and fire). Only for Ranged Touch Attack type spells (rays), though. Or, of course, for melee Touch Attacks.

 

[AGGEMAM]

on a ranged touch however, you would use the normal rules for attacking an invisible opponent (guess the square/50% miss chance).

Note, that we were talking about spells that have a target, not spells that have an effect.

 

[drowdude]

Ok, I'm going back to those simple phrases, sorry:

NO SEE -> NO TARGET -> NO SPELL

LOL

 

[drowdude]

Note, that we were talking about spells that have a target, not spells that have an effect.

edit: Me stoopit... post'um too quickly from thread to thread

 

[AGGEMAM]

I'd certainly allow a 50% miss chance as usual (guess the square and fire). Only for Ranged Touch Attack type spells (rays), though. Or, of course, for melee Touch Attacks.

Also note, that a ranged touch attacking spell does not have a target it has an effect.

The question was a trap I suppose and you fell in it.

EDIT: Upon re-read your post I guess you didn't fall in it.

 

[AGGEMAM]

Well duh! So was I

No, you might think you were, but you were not.

Some spells have target(s), some spells have an effect, and finally some spells have an area.

Effect spells include rays and spreads.

Target spells must have line of sight. Period.

EDIT: Or touch them if it is a touch spell.