this displacer cloak vs Magic Missile thingee
The Livewire
me (Everybody clap :)
Under the Magic Missile the spell reads: "The target creature must be seen or
otherwise detected to hit, however, so near-total concealment, such as that
offered by arrow slits, can render the spell ineffective. Likewise the caster
must be able to indetify the target. He cannot direct a magic missile to
'Strike the commander of the legion' unless he can singel out the commander
from the rest of the soldiers." (PHB2 Pg 136)
So the 250 C-bill question is is the wearer of a displacer cloak "seen or
otherwise detected to hit"? With Mirror Image this is easier Since the images
are "exact duplicates" that "do exactly what the wizard does" and since it is
specifically stated that "it is impossible for opponents to be certain which
are the illusions and which is the actual wizard." the caster of Magic missile
cannot "single out the commander from the rest of the soldiers."
Now I'd be inclined to have the missiles hit, since the wearer of the
displacer cloak can be seen or detected.
The Livewire
morri...@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu
"And Remember Your Highness; The Sun never sets
on the British Empire because God doesn't trust
the British in the Dark" -Sliders
Matt Hurd
>In a rare instance I DO have the Player's Handbook ( AD&D2, 1989)in front of
>me (Everybody clap :)
clapping and wishing i had a machine at home so i too could have my books in
front of me...
>Under the Magic Missile the spell reads: "The target creature must be seen or
>otherwise detected to hit, however, so near-total concealment, such as that
>offered by arrow slits, can render the spell ineffective. Likewise the caster
>must be able to indetify the target. He cannot direct a magic missile to
>'Strike the commander of the legion' unless he can singel out the commander
>from the rest of the soldiers." (PHB2 Pg 136)
>
>So the 250 C-bill question is is the wearer of a displacer cloak "seen or
>otherwise detected to hit"? With Mirror Image this is easier Since the images
>are "exact duplicates" that "do exactly what the wizard does" and since it is
>specifically stated that "it is impossible for opponents to be certain which
>are the illusions and which is the actual wizard." the caster of Magic missile
>cannot "single out the commander from the rest of the soldiers."
>
>Now I'd be inclined to have the missiles hit, since the wearer of the
>displacer cloak can be seen or detected.
i agree but only after it is obvious that the cloak wearer is displaced.
up til then the image would appear to be the cloak wearer and therefore the
likely target.
have fun,
matt h.
--
matt hurd (m...@wlv.iipo.gtegsc.com) he-matt and the masters of the unix verse
"I am not a man ... I am a magician |"Come dance with the West Wind and touch
without magic, and that's no one | all the mountain tops. Sail over the
at all." - Schmendrick the Magician | canyons and up to the stars." - j. denver
The Amorphous Mass
> Now I'd be inclined to have the missiles hit, since the wearer of the
> displacer cloak can be seen or detected.
If a displaced image of the caster counts as a "detection" would you
have MM strike a caster through a Project Image?
___________
Bushido, n.: the ancient art of keeping your | James Robinson
cool when a US President ralphs in your lap. | james-f-...@uiowa.edu
TSRJIM
If a displaced image of the caster counts as a "detection" would you
have MM strike a caster through a Project Image?
>>>
If the spellcaster were within 10 feet of the projection, I would have him
struck. Otherwise, the magic missile attack passes harmlessly through the
projection and dissipate. The magic missile, once targeted, can only
strike creatures in the 10-foot square area around the target.
IMHO, of course.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++ Jim Butler, Editor/Designer +++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++ TSR, Inc. ++++++++++++++++++++++++
=================== Email: TSR...@aol.com==================
Jim Sisolak
>>>>
T> If a displaced image of the caster counts as a "detection" would you
T> have MM strike a caster through a Project Image?
>>>>
An excellent point.
T> If the spellcaster were within 10 feet of the projection, I would have him
T> struck. Otherwise, the magic missile attack passes harmlessly through the
T> projection and dissipate. The magic missile, once targeted, can only
T> strike creatures in the 10-foot square area around the target.
T> IMHO, of course.
So if I can see the mage but my fellow mage can't, and I cast an illusion
of the ememy (within the 10' of course, and without the knowledge of my
cohort), and my pal then targets that image, you're saying the magic
missile will sort it out and hit the real guy?
If not, please explain why the Projected Image illusion is a different
case.
--
Jim Sisolak | University of Wisconsin - Madison
http://trans4.neep.wisc.edu/~sisolak | Department of Nuclear Engineering
TSRJIM
>>>>
T> If a displaced image of the caster counts as a "detection" would you
T> have MM strike a caster through a Project Image?
>>>>
An excellent point.
T> If the spellcaster were within 10 feet of the projection, I would
have him
T> struck. Otherwise, the magic missile attack passes harmlessly through
the
T> projection and dissipate. The magic missile, once targeted, can only
T> strike creatures in the 10-foot square area around the target.
T> IMHO, of course.
So if I can see the mage but my fellow mage can't, and I cast an illusion
of the ememy (within the 10' of course, and without the knowledge of my
cohort), and my pal then targets that image, you're saying the magic
missile will sort it out and hit the real guy?
If not, please explain why the Projected Image illusion is a different
case.
>>>
Well, that's certainly taking a pretty simple example and mucking up the
woodwork. I would probably let it work though, if for no other reason than
it is such an interesting way to get a mage who is hiding with Project
Image. All of it would depend on the circumstances, though.
If the wizard who cast Project Image was hiding behind some arrow slits
and you cast the illusion in front of the arrow slits, the magic missiles
would miss (because it states in the spell that they would miss under
those circumstances).
Remember that the magic missile (and all spells, for that matter) are not
sentient creatures that can sort anything out. In addition, they're not
"heat-seeking" or anything else. They perform the actions listed in their
descriptions, nothing more. No McGyver alterations are allowed.
A magic missile targeted on a creature who is wearing a cloak of
displacement hits the figure, regardless of the fact that the wearer is a
few feet distant from where the caster thinks he is. The magic missile
goes forward and hits its target in the 10-foot square area it was aimed
at. Nothing more.
On a similar vein, I would also say that a creature hit by the magic
missile does not "lose" his displaced status. Someone firing a normal bow
or a fighter swinging a sword would still miss on their first swing even
if they attacked after the magic missile went off.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++ Jim Butler, Editor/Designer, TSR, Inc. ++++++++++
=================== Email: TSR...@aol.com==================
++Jim's opinion's only sporadically represent those of TSR+
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jim Sisolak
>>>>
>>>>>
T> If a displaced image of the caster counts as a "detection" would you
T> have MM strike a caster through a Project Image?
>>>>>
T> An excellent point. [....]
T> If not, please explain why the Projected Image illusion is a different
T> case.
>>>>
T> Well, that's certainly taking a pretty simple example and mucking up the
T> woodwork. I would probably let it work though, if for no other reason than
It is a natural consequence of your ruling.
T> it is such an interesting way to get a mage who is hiding with Project
T> Image. All of it would depend on the circumstances, though.
Why? Your statement was..if he's within 10' of the image, it hits.
I see him so I place the image 5 feet away. Missiles hit then?
T> If the wizard who cast Project Image was hiding behind some arrow slits
T> and you cast the illusion in front of the arrow slits, the magic missiles
T> would miss (because it states in the spell that they would miss under
T> those circumstances).
So you are changing your mind then? What if I put the illusion behind the
slits?
T> Remember that the magic missile (and all spells, for that matter) are not
T> sentient creatures that can sort anything out. In addition, they're not
That was my point. How does the missile know it should override the mage's
intent and retarget?
T> A magic missile targeted on a creature who is wearing a cloak of
T> displacement hits the figure, regardless of the fact that the wearer is a
T> few feet distant from where the caster thinks he is. The magic missile
Why? You have yet to explain how THIS image is different from the
projected Image or my example.
TSRJIM
T> If the wizard who cast Project Image was hiding behind some arrow
slits
T> and you cast the illusion in front of the arrow slits, the magic
missiles
T> would miss (because it states in the spell that they would miss under
T> those circumstances).
So you are changing your mind then? What if I put the illusion behind the
slits?
>>>
You can't fire a magic missile at someone you can just barely see behind
some arrow slits. It specifically states in the magic missile spell that
the spell would fail to hit its target under this condition, regardless of
how you placed your illusion.
>>>
T> Remember that the magic missile (and all spells, for that matter) are
not
T> sentient creatures that can sort anything out. In addition, they're
not
That was my point. How does the missile know it should override the
mage's
intent and retarget?
T> A magic missile targeted on a creature who is wearing a cloak of
T> displacement hits the figure, regardless of the fact that the wearer
is a
T> few feet distant from where the caster thinks he is. The magic
missile
Why? You have yet to explain how THIS image is different from the
projected Image or my example.
>>>
You're still thinking that the magic should actually "think for itself"
and strike the actual creature. It does not. It simply goes forward and
strikes the creature in the area of effect (10 feet). The various
illusions cloaking the target are immaterial; the magic missile spell is
incapable of targeting specific objects, it only strikes the creature in
the area of effect. This is a function of the magic missile spell itself;
the caster does not need to know the actual location of the target so long
as he can a.) see the target, and b.) the target is within range of the
spell.
The illusionary image of the person protected by a cloak of displacement
or by means of a mirror image spell is just that--an illusion. Even if you
wanted to say that the magic missile spell "strikes" an illusion, I would
rule that the magic missile is not discharged; it has struck nothing. It
can't leave the 10-foot square area, but it will strike until it hits
something. It has also not gone to the extent of its range; if it can
reach the 10-foot square where the target is located, a "miss" by an
illusionary image would not suddenly shorten its range.
Whew. Of course--as in all campaigns--individual DMs are encouraged to
make their own rulings!
Dru A Smith
>>>>
>
>You can't fire a magic missile at someone you can just barely see behind
>some arrow slits. It specifically states in the magic missile spell that
>the spell would fail to hit its target under this condition, regardless of
>how you placed your illusion.
>
>>>>
While I will concede that the spell description specifically states
that arrow slits give protection from magic missiles, I would also like
to point out that that particular sentence is 100% misleading. Here
is why:
"The target creature must be seen or otherwise detected to be hit,
however, so near-total concealment, such as that offered by arrow
slits, can render the spell ineffective."
Problems:
1) If the creature must be seen, and I *CAN* see someone through the
arrow slit, why can't I hit them?
2) If "near-total concealment" prevents me from hitting, then this
disagrees with the "must be seen" statement. If it is *NEAR*
total concealment, then this implies that SOME of the target is
visible.
3) What is "near-total concealment"?
4) Why do you say "can" render the spell ineffective? Sometimes
an arrow slit DOES and sometimtes it DOES NOT negate the spell????
Here are two more useful descriptions, that tend to follow, consistently,
the ideas you conflicting apply from above:
A) "The target creature must be seen or otherwise detected to be hit,
however, so that TOTAL concealment, such as that offered by hiding entirely
behind a wall WILL render the spell ineffective."
B) "At least <fill in the blank>% of the target must be see or otherwise
detectect to be hit, however, so that near-total concealment, such as that
offerec by an arrow slit WILL render the spell ineffective."
I personally play with description "A". I need little more than the
tip of one's nose sticking out from behind a wall to smite it with
magic missiles (causing some serious sinus problems).
>Whew. Of course--as in all campaigns--individual DMs are encouraged to
>make their own rulings!
Of course.
Dru Smith
----------------------------------------------------------------
"...all life is only a set of pictures in the brain, among which
there is no difference betwixt those born of real things and
those born of inward dreamings, and no cause to value the one
above the other"
-- H.P. Lovecraft, The Silver Key
David Leland
: >>>>
: >
: >You can't fire a magic missile at someone you can just barely see behind
: >some arrow slits. It specifically states in the magic missile spell that
: >the spell would fail to hit its target under this condition, regardless of
: >how you placed your illusion.
Just for the record, I think seeing PART of a REAL person through
an arrow slit should be more conducive to successful magic missling than
seeing ALL of the IMAGE of a person who is displaced or using Projected
Image. Comment if you wish, but this is just fundamental opinion, I
think, and not something worthy of arguing. When I DM that's my ruling.
--Azure
a.k.a. David Leland
v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v
The Livewire
>From: The Amorphous Mass <robi...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu>
>Subject: Re: this displacer cloak vs Magic Missile thingee
>Date: Fri, 7 Jul 1995 15:51:21 -0500
>On 7 Jul 1995, The Livewire wrote:
>> Now I'd be inclined to have the missiles hit, since the wearer of the
>> displacer cloak can be seen or detected.
> If a displaced image of the caster counts as a "detection" would you
>have MM strike a caster through a Project Image?
>___________
>Bushido, n.: the ancient art of keeping your | James Robinson
>cool when a US President ralphs in your lap. | james-f-...@uiowa.edu
Good question. I was thinking about the MM being like that modified torpedo
in STVI the one that looped around trying to find the bird of prey. It
streaks towards the displaced image, then loops around until it corrects and
hits the cloak wearer, so maybe it would try to zap the projected image, go
through, and start zooming around for the "real mage".
My room mate pointed out that using the "commander" example in the spells
description, you could single out the "guy wearing the red plume" if you knew
the commander was wearing the red plume, but if he switched his helmet with
private Extra, the missiles would hit private Extra (Hey! He took his hat off!
He can't do that :)
Dru A Smith
I would disagree that you could even give this command. Because you
must see the target, I would rule that you must be looking at the
target to fire. Therefore, the target is not something spoken aloud,
but merely is determined by your line of sight. Sure, if you're looking
right at a person who is wearing a red plume, you will hit that person,
but not because you issued the "hit person with red plume" command, but
because that person is the person you are looking at.
Dru Smith
Dirk Holstege
..snip...
>
>Remember that the magic missile (and all spells, for that matter) are not
>descriptions, nothing more. No McGyver alterations are allowed.
>
>A magic missile targeted on a creature who is wearing a cloak of
>displacement hits the figure, regardless of the fact that the wearer is a
>few feet distant from where the caster thinks he is. The magic missile
>goes forward and hits its target in the 10-foot square area it was aimed
>at. Nothing more.
>
These two paragraphs are contradictory. If MM is not heatseeking (it is only a
1st level spell, afterall), It will strike where the mage thinks it should,
automatically. He thinks it should strike the displaced creature, so it
MISSES. It doesn't automatically strike the correct target in a 10' area, this
area is the area other targets need to be in if he also wants to target them
with some of the missiles. If you use the interpretation in paragraph two
above, you do have heat seeking missiles.
>On a similar vein, I would also say that a creature hit by the magic
>missile does not "lose" his displaced status. Someone firing a normal bow
>or a fighter swinging a sword would still miss on their first swing even
>if they attacked after the magic missile went off.
>
If I see MM hit a creature in front of me, I think I will have a good idea
where the real creature is, and swing there. He should lose his displaced
status. I think you are only interpreting it this way to be nice to the poor
diplaced sod who you cheated out of the diplacement with heatseeking MMs above.
Magic missile is only a 1st level spell! There are almost no other spells that
are automatic hits, with no save, and few that do the damage that MM does. It
is already more powerful than any other first level spell, why make it even
better? I think the TSR MM interpretation comes from people who play magic
users, and don't want to give up the traditional advantage of a too powerful
spell. In all fairness, the mage should have to roll to hit as a fighter of
the same level (not that I play that way).
Dirk
Matt Hurd
>
>Remember that the magic missile (and all spells, for that matter) are not
>sentient creatures that can sort anything out. In addition, they're not
>"heat-seeking" or anything else. They perform the actions listed in their
>descriptions, nothing more. No McGyver alterations are allowed.
>
>A magic missile targeted on a creature who is wearing a cloak of
>displacement hits the figure, regardless of the fact that the wearer is a
>few feet distant from where the caster thinks he is. The magic missile
jim, if the caster thinks the image is the _real_ target then that's where
the missile will go because, as you said above, "the magic missile ... are
not sentient creatures that can sort anything out".
>goes forward and hits its target in the 10-foot square area it was aimed
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
which would be the image
>at. Nothing more.
>
>On a similar vein, I would also say that a creature hit by the magic
>missile does not "lose" his displaced status. Someone firing a normal bow
>or a fighter swinging a sword would still miss on their first swing even
>if they attacked after the magic missile went off.
this i would have to disagree with also. if the viewers see the magic
missile hit the hidden target rather than the image they would know enough
to attack where the magic missile hit and therefore would avoid the penalties
of the displacer cloak image confusion...
A little fish in a big pond
This whole Displacement vs. Magic Missile thing:
How it works really depends on your definition of *why* a Magic Missile
always hits. Here are some options -
1. The Magic Missile hits exactly what the caster tells it to. In the
case of the Displacement Cloak, it would hit the image. In the case of
of Image Projection, it would also hit the image.
2. The Magic Missile hits what the caster *wants* it to, with the restriction
that the caster be able to see what he wants the missile to hit.
a. Only an image is required. In this case, as long as the target is in
range of the missile, Displacement and Image Projection won't save
him. And an excellent illusion is sufficient to nail his butt.
b. The actual thing is required. In this case, a Displacement Cloak
causes the missile to abort; the caster can't see the actual target,
but he wants the missile to hit the target, so the missile is cast
without a valid target. This WOULD tell the caster he was facing an
illusion of some sort, tho.
3. The Magic Missile is intelligent. The caster spies the target, tells
the missile what to hit, and the missile goes for it. A Displacement
Cloak would cause the first pass of the missile to miss, and then the
missile would nail the poor guy.
Any other options, or opinions on the "right" option?
Thomas
A little fish in a big pond
> While I will concede that the spell description specifically states
> that arrow slits give protection from magic missiles, I would also like
> to point out that that particular sentence is 100% misleading. Here
> is why:
I've responded with a possible line of reasoning. It is NOT one I follow,
because I don't use the precise wording that the PHB uses.
> "The target creature must be seen or otherwise detected to be hit,
> however, so near-total concealment, such as that offered by arrow
> slits, can render the spell ineffective."
>
> Problems:
>
> 1) If the creature must be seen, and I *CAN* see someone through the
> arrow slit, why can't I hit them?
> 2) If "near-total concealment" prevents me from hitting, then this
> disagrees with the "must be seen" statement. If it is *NEAR*
> total concealment, then this implies that SOME of the target is
> visible.
> 3) What is "near-total concealment"?
> 4) Why do you say "can" render the spell ineffective? Sometimes
> an arrow slit DOES and sometimtes it DOES NOT negate the spell????
1. You cannot distinguish the person as a person, however. I believe
that this means, roughly, that you have to be able to tell what
the target is.
2. This does not disagree; it complements the requirement. Thus, you
must BOTH "be able to see target" AND "be able to see target clearly".
3. Anything which prevents you from being able to distinguish the target.
For example, through an arrow slit movement could be a sheet of colored
paper and you wouldn't know the difference.
4. Not all "near-total concealment" prevents you from distinguishing the
target. Hiding behind a bush makes it difficult to spot the target in
the first place, but once spotted the target is nailed.
Thomas
Matt Hurd
>
>You're still thinking that the magic should actually "think for itself"
>and strike the actual creature. It does not. It simply goes forward and
>strikes the creature in the area of effect (10 feet). The various
>illusions cloaking the target are immaterial; the magic missile spell is
>incapable of targeting specific objects, it only strikes the creature in
then how do you explain the ability to assign different missile to different
targets? if a 5th level mage casts the spell, he can assign his multiple
missiles to strike different targets (within 10' cube). how do these missiles
know which targets in the cube to strike? with your reasoning they would
just pick something and hit it. not logical.
>the area of effect. This is a function of the magic missile spell itself;
>the caster does not need to know the actual location of the target so long
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
i disagree, the caster must see the target (or otherwise detect his location)
IDHTPHBIFOM but i believe this is in the spell description.
>as he can a.) see the target, and b.) the target is within range of the
>spell.
>
>The illusionary image of the person protected by a cloak of displacement
>or by means of a mirror image spell is just that--an illusion. Even if you
>wanted to say that the magic missile spell "strikes" an illusion, I would
>rule that the magic missile is not discharged; it has struck nothing. It
>can't leave the 10-foot square area, but it will strike until it hits
>something. It has also not gone to the extent of its range; if it can
>reach the 10-foot square where the target is located, a "miss" by an
>illusionary image would not suddenly shorten its range.
this is totally correct in my opinion.
>
>Whew. Of course--as in all campaigns--individual DMs are encouraged to
>make their own rulings!
and this too is totally correct.
Dirk Holstege
..snip...
>
>You're still thinking that the magic should actually "think for itself"
>and strike the actual creature. It does not. It simply goes forward and
>strikes the creature in the area of effect (10 feet). The various
>illusions cloaking the target are immaterial; the magic missile spell is
>incapable of targeting specific objects, it only strikes the creature in
>the caster does not need to know the actual location of the target so long
>spell.
You can rule this way, but this is an artefact of how the spell is
written, (rules lawyers rejoice) ie something like "the missiles streak
from the casters hand and automatically strike the target(s) in a 10'
area" (IDHMPMIFOF). This just means the targets all have to be in the
area. You don't cast MM at an area, you cast it at a creature. You must
be able to see your target at the time of casting, thus you shoot it
at what you see, which is automatically hit.
Automatically hit means no save, not "the creature you intend to hit, no
matter how well hidden, is hit."
This is just a missile, a magical form of an arrow. This magical missile
is discharged similarily to arrow or dart from the hand of the caster, at
the intended target, but unlike an arrow that requires a roll to hit, the
MM always hits that target. Not the intended target!
>The illusionary image of the person protected by a cloak of displacement
>or by means of a mirror image spell is just that--an illusion. Even if you
>wanted to say that the magic missile spell "strikes" an illusion, I would
>rule that the magic missile is not discharged; it has struck nothing. It
>can't leave the 10-foot square area, but it will strike until it hits
>something. It has also not gone to the extent of its range; if it can
>reach the 10-foot square where the target is located, a "miss" by an
>illusionary image would not suddenly shorten its range.
What, does it turn around and around in the 10' area until the intended
victim walks over there. Isn't that a heat seeking missile? Isn't the
duration instantaneous. It will strike until it hits something? In fact
it will only (automatically) strike the target chosen by the mage at the
time of casting. If that target is unable to be hit, the MM hits
whatever is in direct line of fire of the intended target, like any other
missile.
>
>Whew. Of course--as in all campaigns--individual DMs are encouraged to
>make their own rulings!
I don't need encouragement on this one. You want MM to be as powerful
that true seeing, with no save, and as much damage as a fireball (if you
make your save, that is). No way, on a first level spell. Make it a
third level and I'll think about it.
Dirk
David Leland
: On a similar train of thought - I had a dispute with some of my players
: tonight about using a Tasha's Uncontrollable Hideous Laughter against
: a foe who had Improved Invisibility cast upon him. They were making
: the argument that since they knew where the person was (he was
: attacking another player), that they should be able to cast the spell.
: I felt this would severely limit the capabilities of improved invisibility.
: It says in the PHB that a mage has to be able to see the target of
: the spell unless it is an area of affect. Well, Tasha's is one of those
: "1 or more creatures in a 30' cube" type of spells. Hold Person is a
: similar type of spell. My ruling was that if the player made a save
: vs. spell (disbelieved), they could target the invisible opponent with
: the spell. It seemed to be a compromise between allowing it outright
: and forbidding it altogether, though the player still wasn't happy.
: What do you think? Good decision? Thanks,
You made a ruling that was a compromise and so that was good
because it kept the game moving.
In terms of general application, my opinion is that just about all
instances of 'X number of opponents in a Y area' are not meant to say that
the caster needn't target the opponents and will affect whichever he/she
likes within that area as long as they're in that area. Rather, I think
that's a way of preventing the caster from affecting up to X number of
opponents scattered all about, where each victim is within the spell's
range. It basically means that all targets have to be within spell range
AND within a certain distance from each other or from a point within the
spell range.
Basically, it's like having two levels of range consideration.
First, there is a range in which an area can be imposed. Second, there is
that area, in which targetable victims can be affected, but not everything
within that area is effected--only what you can target in the same way you
would if you had to target just one victim.
Now this is the way I look at it, but in most cases there is no
hard and fast reason to dismiss the possibility that such spells affect
ANY creatures within the area. If there are more creatures than the
spell says can be affected, you can determine which ones are affected
randomly, by having lower level/HD creatures be affected first, by
proximity to the center of the area of effect (as if the spell radiated
outward from that point and lost its juice when it was 'absorbed' by X
number of creatures), or a combination of these criteria. By this view,
it wouldn't matter whether the caster can see or otherwise target the
creatures, because all he/she would do is pick the center of the area of
effect, and the rest would happen by itself according to randomness,
level/HD, and/or proximity to that center.
There are situations where I think you can rule out this
possibility, however, as with Magic Missle, because there is SPECIFIC
mention of the need to target individual victims. And even if you DID
accept the above view for MM, there would be no need for an illusory or
displaced image (sound or a guess would do just fine, with accomodation
for error in targeting), and there would be no guarantee that the
missle(s) would affect who you would want it/them to. It could be by
proximity to the center of the 10' cube, by random die roll, by level/HD,
perhaps, but it would seem quite odd to say it was by the caster's 'best
wishes' or by the creature who matches the image, since such a match would
be no better than allowing someone to choose a target based on apparrel or
military rank, as mentioned in the PHB and other posters.
On the flip side, it's quite clear with Invisibility 10' Radius
that it affects "all creatures within 10 feet of the recipient" (p.
150). Obviously, you don't need to know that the (now rather happy) enemy
thief is stealthily trailing you 6' behind for him/her to become
invisible when you fire the spell!
With other spells like TUHL, it's less clear. You have to decide
whether you envision a metaphorical 'blanket' of laughter that falls on
all in the area but somehow only affects X of them, or metaphorical
'missles' that strike specific targets that are in the area and perceived
by the caster, causing the laughter. Same goes for Charm Monster, Hold
Person, etc.
Consider, however, the different Area of Effect listing for Haste
and Slow: "40' cube, 1 creature/level." In these two spells alone in the
PHB the area is mentioned before the number of creatures. Now, that may
be a trivial and unintended difference, but you could also think that
because the area is mentioned first, the area takes precedence, affecting
anyone within it (targetable or not), then the number of creatures. By
contrast, spells of the 'X creatures in a Y area' would have as their
first concern targeted creatures, and as a restriction on that, an area.
Again, you can say the difference is grammatical style, or that
targeting is not an issue in any case, just the number of creatures,
perceivable or not, and the area. It's your choice to think of it as a
'blanket' or as 'missles,' but just be consistent. If players want to be
able affect invisible/displaced/projected creatures without percieving
them correctly or at all, then remember not to allow them to choose their
targets, friend or foe, within the areas of effect of 'X creatures in a Y
area' spells. In other words, don't let them choose only their friends to
be Hasted, Feather Fall-ed, get courage or hope from Emotion, etc. It
affects whoever's in the area, friend or foe, visible or invisible.
And don't let them tell you that only their foes fall victim to Slow,
Confusion, Hold Person, Irritation, etc. If PC's are in the area, roll
randomly, compare HD/levels, or see how far outward the spell radiates
from the center of the area before X number of creatures are affected.
One of them might be a friend!
Cheers and sorry for the length :)
bgk...@ibm.net
On a similar train of thought - I had a dispute with some of my players
tonight about using a Tasha's Uncontrollable Hideous Laughter against
a foe who had Improved Invisibility cast upon him. They were making
the argument that since they knew where the person was (he was
attacking another player), that they should be able to cast the spell.
I felt this would severely limit the capabilities of improved invisibility.
It says in the PHB that a mage has to be able to see the target of
the spell unless it is an area of affect. Well, Tasha's is one of those
"1 or more creatures in a 30' cube" type of spells. Hold Person is a
similar type of spell. My ruling was that if the player made a save
vs. spell (disbelieved), they could target the invisible opponent with
the spell. It seemed to be a compromise between allowing it outright
and forbidding it altogether, though the player still wasn't happy.
What do you think? Good decision? Thanks,
Brett King
Phil Kernick
descriptions:
Cloak: Any missile or melee attack aimed at the wearer automatically misses
the first time.
Note very carefully, magic missile is *not* a missile weapon as far as the
rules go - it is a magical attack. So the cloak would make *no* difference.
Phil.
--
_-_|\ Phil Kernick E-Mail: ph...@dhn.csiro.au
/ \ Information Technology Manager Phone: (08) 303 8812
\_.-*_/ CSIRO Division of Human Nutrition Fax: (08) 303 8899
v PO Box 10041 Gouger Street Mobile: 041 981 0849
Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia "Kick his interrupt, pal!"
David Leland
: I'm amazed that this has gone on this long. The answer is simple - read the
: descriptions:
: Cloak: Any missile or melee attack aimed at the wearer automatically misses
: the first time.
: Note very carefully, magic missile is *not* a missile weapon as far as the
: rules go - it is a magical attack. So the cloak would make *no* difference.
Two points:
1) "Any missle" is ambiguous, and need not mean "Any NONMAGICAL or
MISSLE WEAPON missle." It might mean "Any missle," including ones made of
magic (i.e. magic missle, minute meteors, etc.). I think you're confusing
what's clear/desirable for you with what's unequivocably clear/desirable
for everyone.
2) For many people, the issue is not only or not at all the
description in any book. For many people it's an issue of what makes
more sense to them, of what preserves game balance, and of what promotes
the most fun for their game. All the page numbers and rule books can't
settle such an issue, when people are making different interpretations
because they WANT to, even if the rules as published are clear. And here
they are not clear. They are ambiguous, and ambiguity invites
speculation and interpretation.
--Azure
a.k.a. David Leland
v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v
[soon I too will tire of the thread, which is why I'm glad to have this
little command in my newsreader that will let me skip by it in about 1
second with my 2400 baud modem :) ]