 |
|
|
|
Next: Weird player
|
| Author |
Message |
External
Since: Feb 18, 2007
Posts: 3
|
(Msg. 1) Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 10:45 pm
Post subject: lightning bolt vs total concealment
Archived from groups: rec>games>frp>dnd (more info?)
|
|
|
i am currently running a game and i decided to use the dark water pit
trap from the book of challenges. for those not familiar with that,
read on. for those that know it, skip the next paragraph.
the important part of the dark water pit trap is that the players are
in a 10ft wide hallway filled with magical darkness that negates all
magical means of sight, including darkvision. opposite the players is
a 10sqft room with 4 deurgar in it with crossbows. the wall nearest
the players is open at the bottom, large enough to crawl or shoot
crossbows through. the deurgar simply fire into the darkness once they
hear the players and hope they get a hit.
the mage in the party decided to fire a lightning bolt spell down the
hallway, since he knew there was *something* there firing crossbows.
since he could not see the deurgar though, i ruled that they get the
50% total concealment check. my reasoning is that although a lightning
bolt is not small enough to be considered a ray, it still does not
take up the entire 5x5x5 cube a deugar would normally occupy. since
the spell cannot be aimed accurately, the concealment check should
hold. furthermore, since the players do not know about the low wall,
the wall may stop the lightning bolt entirely.
none of the books seem to give a definitive ruling on whether line
spells suffer from concealment checks, so i am wondering what you guys
think about it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 | |
External
Since: May 08, 2005
Posts: 194
|
(Msg. 2) Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 2:51 am
Post subject: Re: lightning bolt vs total concealment [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On 19 Feb, 06:45, s....DeleteThis@comcast.net wrote:
> i am currently running a game and i decided to use the dark water pit
> trap from the book of challenges. for those not familiar with that,
> read on. for those that know it, skip the next paragraph.
>
> the important part of the dark water pit trap is that the players are
> in a 10ft wide hallway filled with magical darkness that negates all
> magical means of sight, including darkvision. opposite the players is
> a 10sqft room with 4 deurgar in it with crossbows. the wall nearest
> the players is open at the bottom, large enough to crawl or shoot
> crossbows through. the deurgar simply fire into the darkness once they
> hear the players and hope they get a hit.
>
> the mage in the party decided to fire a lightning bolt spell down the
> hallway, since he knew there was *something* there firing crossbows.
> since he could not see the deurgar though, i ruled that they get the
> 50% total concealment check. my reasoning is that although a lightning
> bolt is not small enough to be considered a ray, it still does not
> take up the entire 5x5x5 cube a deugar would normally occupy. since
> the spell cannot be aimed accurately, the concealment check should
> hold. furthermore, since the players do not know about the low wall,
> the wall may stop the lightning bolt entirely.
>
> none of the books seem to give a definitive ruling on whether line
> spells suffer from concealment checks, so i am wondering what you guys
> think about it.
Concealement doesn't block line of effect, and I'm pretty sure that is
all spells generally care about.
What caught us out last game is the same question about Magic Missile:
we guessed that if you could not identify whereabouts in the cloud of
sulphur the Nightmare was, you couldn't pick your target.
Mark |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 28, 2004
Posts: 1014
|
(Msg. 3) Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:56 am
Post subject: Re: lightning bolt vs total concealment [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
snex.RemoveThis@comcast.net wrote:
> none of the books seem to give a definitive ruling on whether line
> spells suffer from concealment checks, so i am wondering what you guys
> think about it.
Concealment applies to individually targetted attacks (NB: "If the
attacker hits ..."). While a "line-shaped spell affects all creatures in
squares that the line passes through." What's so confusing? They're in
the squares, they're affected, there was not hit roll.
Cover provides +2 ref. Improved Cover (DM's call) is +4 ref and
free Improved Evasion. That looks like what you were after.
--
tussock
Aspie at work, sorry in advance. >> Stay informed about: lightning bolt vs total concealment |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Feb 18, 2007
Posts: 3
|
(Msg. 4) Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 9:30 am
Post subject: Re: lightning bolt vs total concealment [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Feb 19, 4:51 am, ring... DeleteThis @hotmail.com wrote:
> On 19 Feb, 06:45, s... DeleteThis @comcast.net wrote:
>
>
>
> > i am currently running a game and i decided to use the dark water pit
> > trap from the book of challenges. for those not familiar with that,
> > read on. for those that know it, skip the next paragraph.
>
> > the important part of the dark water pit trap is that the players are
> > in a 10ft wide hallway filled with magical darkness that negates all
> > magical means of sight, including darkvision. opposite the players is
> > a 10sqft room with 4 deurgar in it with crossbows. the wall nearest
> > the players is open at the bottom, large enough to crawl or shoot
> > crossbows through. the deurgar simply fire into the darkness once they
> > hear the players and hope they get a hit.
>
> > the mage in the party decided to fire alightningboltspell down the
> > hallway, since he knew there was *something* there firing crossbows.
> > since he could not see the deurgar though, i ruled that they get the
> > 50%totalconcealmentcheck. my reasoning is that although alightning
> >boltis not small enough to be considered a ray, it still does not
> > take up the entire 5x5x5 cube a deugar would normally occupy. since
> > the spell cannot be aimed accurately, theconcealmentcheck should
> > hold. furthermore, since the players do not know about the low wall,
> > the wall may stop thelightningboltentirely.
>
> > none of the books seem to give a definitive ruling on whether line
> > spells suffer fromconcealmentchecks, so i am wondering what you guys
> > think about it.
>
> Concealement doesn't block line of effect, and I'm pretty sure that is
> all spells generally care about.
>
> What caught us out last game is the same question about Magic Missile:
> we guessed that if you could not identify whereabouts in the cloud of
> sulphur the Nightmare was, you couldn't pick your target.
>
> Mark
i dont see why concealment shouldnt block line of effect, as long as
that line doesnt take up the entire 5x5 sqft area that the enemy can
occupy. when firing a lightning bolt, you still have to aim it, even
though it doesnt require a hit roll. if you cant see what youre aiming
at, you have to guess, and thats what concealment is for. >> Stay informed about: lightning bolt vs total concealment |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Feb 18, 2007
Posts: 3
|
(Msg. 5) Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 9:31 am
Post subject: Re: lightning bolt vs total concealment [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Feb 19, 6:29 am, tussock <s....DeleteThis@clear.net.nz> wrote:
> s....DeleteThis@comcast.net wrote:
> > none of the books seem to give a definitive ruling on whether line
> > spells suffer fromconcealmentchecks, so i am wondering what you guys
> > think about it.
>
> Concealmentapplies to individually targetted attacks (NB: "If the
> attacker hits ..."). While a "line-shaped spell affects all creatures in
> squares that the line passes through." What's so confusing? They're in
> the squares, they're affected, there was not hit roll.
>
> Cover provides +2 ref. Improved Cover (DM's call) is +4 ref and
> free Improved Evasion. That looks like what you were after.
>
> --
> tussock
>
> Aspie at work, sorry in advance.
im referring to total concealment, which gives a 50% miss chance. >> Stay informed about: lightning bolt vs total concealment |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Mar 23, 2005
Posts: 6
|
(Msg. 6) Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 9:56 am
Post subject: Re: lightning bolt vs total concealment [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Sep 14, 2006
Posts: 374
|
(Msg. 7) Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 4:57 pm
Post subject: Re: lightning bolt vs total concealment [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
snex DeleteThis @comcast.net wrote:
> i am currently running a game and i decided to use the dark water pit
> trap from the book of challenges. for those not familiar with that,
> read on. for those that know it, skip the next paragraph.
>
> the important part of the dark water pit trap is that the players are
> in a 10ft wide hallway filled with magical darkness that negates all
> magical means of sight, including darkvision. opposite the players is
> a 10sqft room with 4 deurgar in it with crossbows. the wall nearest
> the players is open at the bottom, large enough to crawl or shoot
> crossbows through. the deurgar simply fire into the darkness once they
> hear the players and hope they get a hit.
>
> the mage in the party decided to fire a lightning bolt spell down the
> hallway, since he knew there was *something* there firing crossbows.
> since he could not see the deurgar though, i ruled that they get the
> 50% total concealment check. my reasoning is that although a lightning
> bolt is not small enough to be considered a ray, it still does not
> take up the entire 5x5x5 cube a deugar would normally occupy. since
> the spell cannot be aimed accurately, the concealment check should
> hold. furthermore, since the players do not know about the low wall,
> the wall may stop the lightning bolt entirely.
>
> none of the books seem to give a definitive ruling on whether line
> spells suffer from concealment checks, so i am wondering what you guys
> think about it.
A Lightning Bolt (or indeed any Line effect) affects a *much* wider space
than a ray. Check out page 176 of the PHB for the illustration of which
squares are affected by a Line effect. In particular, consider the fact that
if you send a Lightning Bolt down the centreline of a ten-foot wide
corridor, it affects all creatures in every single square in that corridor,
regardless of where in those squares they happen to be standing.
Concealment (total or otherwise) provides no miss chance because Lightning
Bolt is not an aimed effect, it is an area effect. Likewise, since Lightning
Bolt affects an area rather than an individual, Concealment provides no
bonus to reflex saves to avoid the effect.
--
Mark Blunden. >> Stay informed about: lightning bolt vs total concealment |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 28, 2004
Posts: 1014
|
(Msg. 8) Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 11:56 pm
Post subject: Re: lightning bolt vs total concealment [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Kai Rosenthal wrote:
> tussock schrieb:
>> Cover provides +2 ref. Improved Cover (DM's call) is +4 ref and
>> free Improved Evasion. That looks like what you were after.
>
> Do you have a reference for that last bit?
> That would right now save my character's
> (otherwise rather crispy) butt...
PHB p152, Varying Degrees of Cover, representing someone peering
around a corner or through an arrow slit.
--
tussock
Aspie at work, sorry in advance. >> Stay informed about: lightning bolt vs total concealment |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 28, 2004
Posts: 1014
|
(Msg. 9) Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 11:56 pm
Post subject: Re: lightning bolt vs total concealment [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
snex.DeleteThis@comcast.net wrote:
> im referring to total concealment, which gives a 50% miss chance.
Not against area effect spells it doesn't. You're affected if the
area covers the square you're in, period. Lines (like /Lightning Bolt/)
are an area spell.
Enough trying to weasel your NPCs out of a perfectly good player
tactic already.
--
tussock >> Stay informed about: lightning bolt vs total concealment |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Feb 20, 2007
Posts: 5
|
(Msg. 10) Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 2:08 pm
Post subject: Re: lightning bolt vs total concealment [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Feb 19, 9:47 pm, tussock <s... DeleteThis @clear.net.nz> wrote:
> s... DeleteThis @comcast.net wrote:
> > im referring to total concealment, which gives a 50% miss chance.
>
> Not against area effect spells it doesn't. You're affected if the
> area covers the square you're in, period. Lines (like /Lightning Bolt/)
> are an area spell.
>
> Enough trying to weasel your NPCs out of a perfectly good player
> tactic already.
>
> --
> tussock
blasting spells randomly when you cant see anything isnt a perfectly
good player tactic. in fact, it's rather stupid, considering you dont
know the distance to the attackers.
but besides that, even area of effect spells need to be *aimed* even
though no attack roll is necessary. couple that with the fact that the
low wall would stop the lightning bolt, and the players dont know that
the wall is there, and there is no reason a miss chance shouldnt
apply. lightning bolts do not take up the entire 5x5xinfinity grid
space. if two creatures are on a line, but one is flying 100 feet in
the air, does the lightning bolt affect both? of course not. remember,
it is a *line* of effect, not a *plane,* and it is not 5x5. just
because you dont need an attack roll doesnt mean you dont need to aim
the spell. >> Stay informed about: lightning bolt vs total concealment |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Aug 21, 2004
Posts: 1923
|
(Msg. 11) Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:56 pm
Post subject: Re: lightning bolt vs total concealment [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
At 20 Feb 2007 14:08:44 -0800, snex wrote:
> > > im referring to total concealment, which gives a 50% miss chance.
> >
> > Not against area effect spells it doesn't. You're affected if the
> > area covers the square you're in, period. Lines (like /Lightning Bolt/)
> > are an area spell.
> >
> > Enough trying to weasel your NPCs out of a perfectly good player
> > tactic already.
>
> blasting spells randomly when you cant see anything isnt a perfectly
> good player tactic. in fact, it's rather stupid, considering you dont
> know the distance to the attackers.
That's why you use lightning bolt rather than fireball, since lightning
bolt goes all the way from your space to the end of range.
> but besides that, even area of effect spells need to be *aimed* even
> though no attack roll is necessary.
And it was aimed. Bang, zoom, straight down the hallway!
> couple that with the fact that the
> low wall would stop the lightning bolt, and the players dont know that
> the wall is there, and there is no reason a miss chance shouldnt
> apply.
Depending on how the wall is placed (I'm not sure I'm picturing it
correctly), it should either provide the duergar with cover, stop the
bolt outright or do nothing.
Miss chance is for concealment, not walls. And concealment doesn't
matter for area effects.
> lightning bolts do not take up the entire 5x5xinfinity grid
> space.
Indeed not. It takes up 5 ft. x 5 ft. x 120 ft.
> if two creatures are on a line, but one is flying 100 feet in
> the air, does the lightning bolt affect both? of course not.
Of course, unless you shoot it at an angle.
> remember,
> it is a *line* of effect, not a *plane,* and it is not 5x5.
It is, effectively. That's what how a line spell works: "A line-shaped
spell shoots away from you in a line in the direction you designate. It
starts from any corner of your square and extends to the limit of its
range or until it strikes a barrier that blocks line of effect. A line-
shaped spell affects all creatures in squares that the line passes
through."
> just because you dont need an attack roll doesnt mean you dont need to aim
> the spell.
But you don't need to worry about concealment however, since the spell
affects all creatures in squares that the line passes through.
--
Jasin Zujovic >> Stay informed about: lightning bolt vs total concealment |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Sep 14, 2006
Posts: 374
|
(Msg. 12) Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:56 pm
Post subject: Re: lightning bolt vs total concealment [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
snex wrote:
> On Feb 19, 9:47 pm, tussock <s....DeleteThis@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>> s....DeleteThis@comcast.net wrote:
>>> im referring to total concealment, which gives a 50% miss chance.
>>
>> Not against area effect spells it doesn't. You're affected if
>> the area covers the square you're in, period. Lines (like /Lightning
>> Bolt/) are an area spell.
>>
>> Enough trying to weasel your NPCs out of a perfectly good player
>> tactic already.
>>
>> --
>> tussock
>
>
> blasting spells randomly when you cant see anything isnt a perfectly
> good player tactic. in fact, it's rather stupid, considering you dont
> know the distance to the attackers.
>
> but besides that, even area of effect spells need to be *aimed* even
> though no attack roll is necessary. couple that with the fact that the
> low wall would stop the lightning bolt, and the players dont know that
> the wall is there, and there is no reason a miss chance shouldnt
> apply. lightning bolts do not take up the entire 5x5xinfinity grid
> space. if two creatures are on a line, but one is flying 100 feet in
> the air, does the lightning bolt affect both? of course not. remember,
> it is a *line* of effect, not a *plane,* and it is not 5x5. just
> because you dont need an attack roll doesnt mean you dont need to aim
> the spell.
Fired correctly down a corridor, a Lightning Bolt will affect an entire
10X10X120 foot volume. And unless something directly blocks its path - which
a low wall won't manage - it affects every single creature within those
squares.
Your players used a good tactic, and one which by the rules would work,
absolutely reliably.
--
Mark Blunden. >> Stay informed about: lightning bolt vs total concealment |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Mar 09, 2006
Posts: 188
|
(Msg. 13) Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 5:27 pm
Post subject: Re: lightning bolt vs total concealment [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
ringofw.DeleteThis@hotmail.com wrote:
> On 19 Feb, 06:45, s....DeleteThis@comcast.net wrote:
> > none of the books seem to give a definitive ruling on whether line
> > spells suffer from concealment checks, so i am wondering what you guys
> > think about it.
>
> Concealement doesn't block line of effect, and I'm pretty sure that is
> all spells generally care about.
You are correct.
>From the SRD: "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."
(So much for the claim that "none of the books seem to give a
definitive ruling on whether line [of effect] spells suffer from
concealment checks". I guess the original poster wasn't including the
PHB's definition of "Line of Effect" in that generalization.)
> What caught us out last game is the same question about Magic Missile:
> we guessed that if you could not identify whereabouts in the cloud of
> sulphur the Nightmare was, you couldn't pick your target.
Right again. From the SRD: "You must be able to see or touch the
target, and you must specifically choose that target. You do not have
to select your target until you finish casting the spell."
Since total concealment literally means you don't have line of sight,
you can't see the Nightmare and you can't cast a spell with them as
the target (unless you were close enough to touch the Nightmare).
--
Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net >> Stay informed about: lightning bolt vs total concealment |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Mar 09, 2006
Posts: 188
|
(Msg. 14) Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 5:31 pm
Post subject: Re: lightning bolt vs total concealment [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
snex wrote:
> but besides that, even area of effect spells need to be *aimed* even
> though no attack roll is necessary. couple that with the fact that the
> low wall would stop the lightning bolt, and the players dont know that
> the wall is there, and there is no reason a miss chance shouldnt
> apply. lightning bolts do not take up the entire 5x5xinfinity grid
> space. if two creatures are on a line, but one is flying 100 feet in
> the air, does the lightning bolt affect both? of course not. remember,
> it is a *line* of effect, not a *plane,* and it is not 5x5. just
> because you dont need an attack roll doesnt mean you dont need to aim
> the spell.
Lemme get this straight:
1. You come here asking for help, claiming that the books don't have
the answer.
2. Several people point out that the books DO have the answer.
3. You say that the books are wrong.
RTFM and grow up. Your players came up with a tactic which, by the
book, overcame the challenge you put in front of them. That's what
they're *supposed* to do.
--
Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net >> Stay informed about: lightning bolt vs total concealment |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: May 08, 2005
Posts: 194
|
(Msg. 15) Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:42 am
Post subject: Re: lightning bolt vs total concealment [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On 23 Feb, 03:25, "snex" <s... RemoveThis @comcast.net> wrote:
> On Feb 22, 7:31 pm, "Justin Alexander" <jus... RemoveThis @thealexandrian.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > snex wrote:
> > > but besides that, even area of effect spells need to be *aimed* even
> > > though no attack roll is necessary. couple that with the fact that the
> > > low wall would stop the lightning bolt, and the players dont know that
> > > the wall is there, and there is no reason a miss chance shouldnt
> > > apply. lightning bolts do not take up the entire 5x5xinfinity grid
> > > space. if two creatures are on a line, but one is flying 100 feet in
> > > the air, does the lightning bolt affect both? of course not. remember,
> > > it is a *line* of effect, not a *plane,* and it is not 5x5. just
> > > because you dont need an attack roll doesnt mean you dont need to aim
> > > the spell.
>
> > Lemme get this straight:
>
> > 1. You come here asking for help, claiming that the books don't have
> > the answer.
>
> > 2. Several people point out that the books DO have the answer.
>
> > 3. You say that the books are wrong.
>
> > RTFM and grow up. Your players came up with a tactic which, by the
> > book, overcame the challenge you put in front of them. That's what
> > they're *supposed* to do.
>
> > --
> > Justin Alexanderhttp://www.thealexandrian.net
>
> hey congrats dumbass, you can flame on usenet. why dont you quote me
> the SPECIFIC part of ANY book that says "concealment does not apply to
> line of effect spells."
Line of Effect is defined in the Magic Overview Chapter of the SRD
"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."
(Homoeroticism snippped) >> Stay informed about: lightning bolt vs total concealment |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
