Casting underwater...

[Apophis775]

So, Heres the situtation:

I was using firey burst (a feat from Complete MagE), which means that as long as I hold a fire spell in reserve, I can deal 1d6 per level of said fire spell. This does not provoke an attack of opportunity, does not work as a spell (can be used without speaking or moving hands). Basically, my target just "pops" I don't even make an attack.

Anyway, recently I fell of of a boat into about 10 feet of water. HOWEVER, being always prepared i spent a turn pulling out my periscope (after failing a swim-check to the top). I was told that it was above the water, and I could see people with clubs. So, my next turn: Fiery burst. I was told that not only did i have to make an attack role, but I couldn't use my periscope to aim because it involved mirrors.

Now, I've definatly read about wizards using mirrors to extend their line of site in crazy fashions (in fact, I once played a pre-made campaign where an evil wizard had a small maze of mirrors he used to be able to cast line-of-sight spells like Magic Missile on you while he was in different parts of the maze).

Anyway, I was told to role an attack, and well, I'm a wizard so i missed horribly. But my problem, is that fiery burst is similar to magic missile, It carries no miss chance. When using it, it's literally *GLARE AT TARGET* Roll Damage.

And my defense was that I could cleary see the target with my periscope, not to mention being able to see it through the water as well.



We are still having this discussion actually, and I was wondering if anyone had any rules or references we could use to settle this. Here are my two questions:

Is it possible to use a periscope to peek around corners and cast Spells like magic missile or fiery burst (entire reason i bought the stupid thing)

If you cast a spell with no miss chance underwater, do you have to roll an attack?

[Tokuhara]

As far as I know, magic is nearly omnipowerful, thus with a no-miss chance spell and line of sight, you can hit Chump Mook A (http://www.zeldawiki.org/images/thumb/9/96/Bulblin.png/300px-Bulblin.png) with a magic missile as long as you can clearly see him. Now, if you cast say Cone of Cold, then yes, you'd be in more of a pickle (http://www.superstupid.net/archives/pickle.gif).

[Apophis775]

But what about fiery Burst, which is stricky a Line of Site, no-somatic, non-verbal, non-component spell-like ability i can do at will? Also, no-miss chance.

[Tokuhara]

But what about fiery Burst, which is stricky a Line of Site, no-somatic, non-verbal, non-component spell-like ability i can do at will? Also, no-miss chance.

Since Firey Burst is essentially a Fire Substituted Magic Missle SLA at-will, then it falls under the first category.

[Apophis775]

Meaning that yes it should work?


Here is his arguement: Because water surface breaks Line of effect he claims that even though my spell is literally described as: "create a 5-foot-radius burst of fire at a range of 30 feet" the water breaking my line of effect cancels my ability to use it at that location. He references Page 93 of DM's guide. He also says that a supernatural fire effect is ineffective under water (Despite my targeting above water)

Now, My counter is that: the effect is above water, and because my line of sight is not broken, i can still cause the effect at the targeted location. Now, I do agree that if I was causing the effect on a part ground part water space, the effect would stop at the water, but it would not stop anything above the water.

[Tokuhara]

Meaning that yes it should work?


Here is his arguement: Because water surface breaks Line of effect he claims that even though my spell is literally described as: "create a 5-foot-radius burst of fire at a range of 30 feet" the water breaking my line of effect cancels my ability to use it at that location. He references Page 93 of DM's guide. He also says that a supernatural fire effect is ineffective under water (Despite my targeting above water)

Now, My counter is that: the effect is above water, and because my line of sight is not broken, i can still cause the effect at the targeted location. Now, I do agree that if I was causing the effect on a part ground part water space, the effect would stop at the water, but it would not stop anything above the water.

You were ten feet underwater, and let's guesstimate your target was 10 feet from your location. Angled, that appx 14.14 feet between you and the target. So for D&D terms, it's 15 feet. your spell hits 30', so he's well within your line of effect.

[Apophis775]

I had 3 feet of water above my head.

[VacantPsalm]

You were ten feet underwater, and let's guesstimate your target was 10 feet from your location. Angled, that appx 14.14 feet between you and the target. So for D&D terms, it's 15 feet. your spell hits 30', so he's well within your line of effect.So you're saying that although the surface of water breaks LoE for fire spells and spell-like abilities, (both into and out of water) it does not break it for Supernatural abilities?

That seams a hint inconsistance that spells/spell-like abilities can work underwater, (with SC check) while supernatural abilities can not. Meanwhile, supernatural abilities can work when aiming out of water while spells/spell-like abilities can not. (even with SC check)

[TheCoelacanth]

I'm afraid that you don't have a leg to stand on. DMG 93 is clear that the surface of a body of water breaks the line of effect for fire spells. PHB 176 is clear that you must have a clear line of effect to any target that you cast a spell on or to any space in which you create an effect.

On the other hand, you are free to cast fire spells underwater as long as you succeed on a DC 20 + spell level Spellcraft check, creating a bubble of steam instead of fire, but otherwise having the same effect.

[Apophis775]

Line of effect is the effect of the spell. The water would break the effect of the spell, but it's targeted with line of sight. If i had waterbreathing on, and fired a non-verbal magic missile, wouldn't that have hit? Or would the water have somehow stopped magic missile?

Fiery Burst is similar to Magic Missile, except that it's a supernatural ability and doesn't launch a projectile. The target just quickly bursts into flames and takes damage. No rolling to hit, no somatic, no verbal, no component, no AOO, no concentration. Thats why you have to spend an entire feat on it. Your getting the ability to reliably deal Xd6 damage each time you use it (Unless they save).

IF you can see it, and it's within range, you can damage it there.



addendum: SUPERNATURAL ABILITY. Not a spell. While it requires a fire spell in reserve, it is not cast as a spell. Lookup Reserve feats. It doesn't work as a spell, it's just me using my natural ability to cause a specific location within a set distance that I can see erupt into flames. It is ***NOT*** a spell and is not subject to the breaking on LOE that fire-spells receive underwater because, again, it is not a fire-spell. It is a supernatural ability.

[HalfDragonCube]

Just out of interest, what price did you pay for the periscope? I might need one soon.

[NichG]

Line of effect is the effect of the spell. The water would break the effect of the spell, but it's targeted with line of sight. If i had waterbreathing on, and fired a non-verbal magic missile, wouldn't that have hit? Or would the water have somehow stopped magic missile?


Keep in mind that you always need Line of Effect to target someone, even with Magic Missile (so the hall of mirrors scenario you posited before would not work without some sort of special thing that let you have line of effect to anything you could see).

The main point seems to be whether 'the water surface blocks line of effect for fire spells' should apply to supernatural abilities. I'd say the DM is well within their rights to rule either way on that, and it looks like the DM gave you a compromise result (albeit an unconventional one), namely that yes you could do it but you'd need to roll an attack to target successfully.

[TheCoelacanth]

Line of effect is the effect of the spell. The water would break the effect of the spell, but it's targeted with line of sight. If i had waterbreathing on, and fired a non-verbal magic missile, wouldn't that have hit? Or would the water have somehow stopped magic missile?

Fiery Burst is similar to Magic Missile, except that it's a supernatural ability and doesn't launch a projectile. The target just quickly bursts into flames and takes damage. No rolling to hit, no somatic, no verbal, no component, no AOO, no concentration. Thats why you have to spend an entire feat on it. Your getting the ability to reliably deal Xd6 damage each time you use it (Unless they save).

IF you can see it, and it's within range, you can damage it there.



According to Rules Compendium, line of effect applies to everything unless it specifically says otherwise.


You must have line of effect to any space in which you wish to create an effect.

Fiery Burst does not specifically say that you don't need line of effect so you do need it.



addendum: SUPERNATURAL ABILITY. Not a spell. While it requires a fire spell in reserve, it is not cast as a spell. Lookup Reserve feats. It doesn't work as a spell, it's just me using my natural ability to cause a specific location within a set distance that I can see erupt into flames. It is ***NOT*** a spell and is not subject to the breaking on LOE that fire-spells receive underwater because, again, it is not a fire-spell. It is a supernatural ability.

In that case you can't use it at all underwater, according to DMG 93. Spells and spell-like abilities receive a specific exemption. Supernatural abilities don't.

[Hawriel]

The DM said no. It was a specific situation he made a ruling. Deal with it.

If as a DM I was asked to explane I would say that sence you are under water it would mitigate any fire effects even if the taret was out of water. You as the caster of the spell/spell like ability/what ever, are channeling fire, being serounded by water would dissrupt that.

[Apophis775]

Ok, I combined a few of my posts together and I believe i have an argument that everyone will understand where I'm coming from and why this should work:


1. Fiery Burst is a supernatural ability, and as such, not subject to any of the normal spell effects. For example you never get an attack of opportunity, noone can spellcraft it, and it never requires a concentration check.

2. Page 93 of the DMG specifically states the following: "The Surface of water breaks the line of effect for a fire SPELL.

3. This is ***NOT*** a spell. It is a supernatural ability that is not subject to any of the traditional elements that effect a spell.

4. Yes, if I was creating the fire underwater it would be ineffective, but the fire and the effect is ABOVE WATER.

so explain to me, WHY, would this not be allowed?

Beyond the one sentence that doesn't say anything about supernatural abilities that everyone references, I see NOTHING that says that supernatural ability line of effect is broken by the surface of water, especially since it's creating the fire ABOVE the water, and is not doing anything fire-related that interacts with water at all beyond me being underwater when I create fire above the water through supernatural means.

[Apophis775]

We've decided to each contact WOTC and see what they say.

[herrhauptmann]

We've decided to each contact WOTC and see what they say.

They're probably not going to respond, given that they're now well into 4E and 4Essentials.
Best bet, find the smartest person (in D&D terms) that you can, and ask his/her opinion. Go with that.

[AslanCross]

We've decided to each contact WOTC and see what they say.

They're not going to answer. They pretend 3.5 doesn't exist anymore.

[Apophis775]

They're probably not going to respond, given that they're now well into 4E and 4Essentials.
Best bet, find the smartest person (in D&D terms) that you can, and ask his/her opinion. Go with that.

I did that, checked with someone who had been doing for like 25 years. Our dm said "Congratz, If he worked for WOTC I would care."