The rules are a little fuzzy when I read them re: this topic. My question is can a blind spellcaster place an area of effect spell in a location where they have a line of effect, but no line of sight?
They can cast the spell but placing it would be an issue. There is very good chance the party members might get hit also
|
According to RAW you could. From the magic section of the PRD (bolding mine):
Effect: Some spells create or summon things rather than affecting things that are already present.You must designate the location where these things are to appear, either by seeing it or defining it. Range determines how far away an effect can appear, but if the effect is mobile, after it appears it can move regardless of the spell's range.
[...]
Line of Effect: A line of effect is a straight, unblocked path that indicates what a spell can affect. A line of effect is canceled by a solid barrier. It's like line of sight for ranged weapons, except that it's not blocked by fog, darkness, and other factors that limit normal sight.
According to Raw
Having the blinded condition disallows "All checks and activities that rely on vision". IMHO defining where you want a spell to originate usually relies on vision. There may be some extenuating circumstances for spells with range "touch" or "personal" but to target a fireball 50 feet down range I feel vision, or a Su or Ex ability that functions at the designate range is a requirement.
According to Raw
Having the blinded condition disallows "All checks and activities that rely on vision". IMHO defining where you want a spell to originate usually relies on vision. There may be some extenuating circumstances for spells with range "touch" or "personal" but to target a fireball 50 feet down range I feel vision, or a Su or Ex ability that functions at the designate range is a requirement.
I would tend to agree, from a logical point of view, that accurately placing a fireball 50', or 500', while blind, seems unlikely. On the other hand, accurately placing a Cone of Cold would be very easy, blind or not (of course, you may place your Cone of Cold exactly where you want it, only to find out your enemies had moved somewhere else - but at least you can place it perfectly, right where you want it).
So different area effect spells seem to have different vision requirements, logically.
However, RAW doesn't differentiate between them, and it says you can place the center of an area spell in any space you can see or define. A spellcaster can easily define "500' that way" while pointing his arm in the direction he is casting his fireball. Sure, he probably has no way of knowing if the trolls are standing at that spot, but can definitely define the spot. Magically speaking, it's his fireball, and if he places it 500' away in a specific direction, that's where it will burst, even if he was very wrong (or very right, or anywhere in between) about who or what is standing at the targeted location.
Now, what I would not allow a blind spellcaster to define is "right where that troll is standing". If he can't see him, he cannot target him (and this is supported by the RAW under "Aiming Spells" that require specific targets).
So, since Fireball (and other area spells) don't target creatures but target spaces instead, our blind spellcaster can "define" the space errorlessly. It's another matter entirely for him to know who or what is in that space. Furthermore, if he "defines" a space to which he has no line of effect, he has defined an invalid space. The RAW leaves it up to the DM to decide what happens - me, I would tell the player that his spell does not cast (I would not make him lose the spell since he effectively does not cast it at all). And that would end his turn since defining the target area is part of casting, so he could only get one try to cast the spell in his turn. Next round, he can try to re-cast it with a different area if he wants to.
|
I always like your logic, Blake, but this time I have to disagree.
[...] The RAW leaves it up to the DM to decide what happens - me, I would tell the player that his spell does not cast (I would not make him lose the spell since he effectively does not cast it at all). And that would end his turn since defining the target area is part of casting, so he could only get one try to cast the spell in his turn. Next round, he can try to re-cast it with a different area if he wants to.
I believe that the act of specifying the location (ie. the effect) is performed as part of the casting of the spell and cannot be done separately, thus I would rule the spell lost.
If it's separate, then it cannot affect the spell, and if it's not separate, then the spell is already being cast.
I always like your logic, Blake, but this time I have to disagree.
[...] The RAW leaves it up to the DM to decide what happens - me, I would tell the player that his spell does not cast (I would not make him lose the spell since he effectively does not cast it at all). And that would end his turn since defining the target area is part of casting, so he could only get one try to cast the spell in his turn. Next round, he can try to re-cast it with a different area if he wants to.I believe that the act of specifying the location (ie. the effect) is performed as part of the casting of the spell and cannot be done separately, thus I would rule the spell lost.
If it's separate, then it cannot affect the spell, and if it's not separate, then the spell is already being cast.
Yeah, I hear what you'r saying, but I tend to error on the side of resource management when it comes to spellcasting.
I mean, if a fighter can swing his sword blindly all day, and pinging it off of an unseen wall doesn't take his sword away from him, then it's kind of harsh to punish a wizard for pinging his fireball off of an unseen wall.
If I were going to take the spell away, I would at least let him cast it. He defined an area on the other side of a wall to which he has no LOE, but he does have LOE (using the same Line) right to the point where that line intersects the wall, so that's the point of detonation. Harsh, but fun!
So, for erroring on the side of the spell resources, my (generous?) interpretation would be that defining the area is not separate from casting. In fact, defining a valid area is required for casting - the spell cannot even be cast unless a valid area is defined. Failure to define a valid area means the spell cannot be cast (and since it isn't cast it isn't lost). However, it requires a standard action to define the area and attempt to cast the spell, so even though it isn't cast and isn't lost, the time it taks for the caster to discover his mistake eats up his standard action.
To me, the loss of the action (and the fact that he's blind for some reason, given that's implicit in the initial premise of this thread), is challenging enough without also depleting irreplaceable resources for the failed effort.
I certainly don't begrudge any DM for arbitrating it the other way, though.
Ultimately, the rules are vague here and the DM has to make a judgment call. Especially on Fireball, which is actually a sort of projectile that explodes on contact. There's a bit in the description of the spell that talks about having to make a ranged touch attack to get it through narrow openings like windows, etc. Fail and the Fireball explodes against the windowsill or whatever, pass and you get it through. Given that particular property of Fireball specifically, as DM I ruled that you can't aim it and thus can't cast it. This brings up the more sticky situation of spells like Lightning Bolt, Flame Strike, Cone of Cold, Ice Storm, Shout, etc. I mean, Lightning Bolt has no "magic bullet" clause in its description, but it's affected area is so narrow that it may as well be a ray for all the good it's going to do you trying to cast it blind, so again there, no LOS, no spell. To be clear, I'm not ruling that you lose the spell, just that you can't cast it blind. While it's true that some spells are more indiscriminate (like the cone-shaped ones, or anything that does a cylinder effect), and could, in theory, be cast blindy, the caster usually get's to place or center the area wherever he wants, and if he's blind, that's just not role-playable. I mean, you're going to want to somehow miraculously drop it so that your teammates aren't hit and the badguys are, and if you're blind there's no way you could reliably do that. At this point, when I was DMing, I either had to rule that no area spells requiring a center point or a direction to point in can be cast while blind or I have to say "As DM, I'll let you cast this spell but we need to somehow randomly determine the exact location of the center point, which will probably be in the general area you're telling me you want, so I'll randomize the exact grid location with dice somehow after you tell me where you were blindly aiming." This idea was rife with humorous and or catastrophic possibilities, but also required me to basically write a set of rules for these spells, so I just threw my hands up in the air and said "Sorry, no LOS, no aim-able area spells." I still allow anything that is automatically centered on the caster, and if you want to drop an Ice Storm or Flame Strike centered on you, go for it. And that's not entirely without possible applications, considering spells like Holy Smite don't actually hurt the caster, in all likelihood.
|
|
I see no reason for imposing such a penalty on casters. If a caster has no LOS but has another way of knowing where does he want the spell centered, he should be able to do so, and it has been quoted that RAW support this. Bear in mind that this is only for area spells, of course you need to see the target for targeted spells.
A caster may be blind but could be using her familiar's empathic bond, telepathy, one of the many detection spells, blindsense, tremorsense, a listen check or the directions of another party member to target an area spell.
In the realm of houseruling, as a DM, I might require a caster level or maybe spellcraft check for specially 'vague' directions, like the party fighter saying 'aim your meteor swarm forward and a bit to the right'. :-P
If I were going to take the spell away, I would at least let him cast it. He defined an area on the other side of a wall to which he has no LOE, but he does have LOE (using the same Line) right to the point where that line intersects the wall, so that's the point of detonation. Harsh, but fun!
Actually, that's exactly how I would handle it. Guess I'm harsh. ;)
|
If I were going to take the spell away, I would at least let him cast it. He defined an area on the other side of a wall to which he has no LOE, but he does have LOE (using the same Line) right to the point where that line intersects the wall, so that's the point of detonation. Harsh, but fun!Actually, that's exactly how I would handle it. Guess I'm harsh. ;)
Well, that's what you get when you try to attack the darkness!