Acid Splash

[lall]

1111111111

[Vaz]

Line of Sight and Effect are required. Unless stated otherwise.

[Vaz]

'Line of sight'

Uess youcan see her, no.

[Mellack]

RAW I don't think you have to see them. Acid Splash should work on an invisible creature. Now many DM's may make a ruling otherwise based on the fluff description, but as far as I can tell, the spell should work. It does not contain the "that you can see" phrase of so many spells.
That might also be a nice little boost for a spell that is otherwise generally considered one of the weaker combat cantrips.

[JNAProductions]

That being said, you do have to choose a square. You cannot just say "I target Cate" unless you know where they are.

[RickAllison]

You don't need to see them, but you still have to target them. If the creature just went invisible, you are fine, you know where they are. If they took the Hide action and beat your Perception (passive or active if you Searched), you can't target them.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Lots of spells omit the "that you can see" clause, but I've never seen anyone claim you can cast Fireball at unseen points or Fire Bolt at unseen targets. Would certainly be met with "you ARE joking, right?" at my table.


You don't need to see them, but you still have to target them. If the creature just went invisible, you are fine, you know where they are. If they took the Hide action and beat your Perception (passive or active if you Searched), you can't target them.

Yes, more like this. You can attack their square, but no homing action.

[Puh Laden]

I would rule that if a target is hidden and not just invisible, you'd have to guess their location. I think it's a fair compromise between the rulings of "you can't target a hidden creature with acid splash" and "you are automatically able to target a creature even if they are hidden from you."

[Puh Laden]

That's if I'm making an attack though, right?

There are three ways to rule acid splash in regards to a hidden (and not merely invisible) creature:

1. auto-hit
2. auto-fail
3. guess the location

"Auto-hit" is out of the question. Otherwise you could say "Okay everyone, stand 61 feet away, I'm going to cast acid splash on the creature closest to me that isn't myself. It failed? Oh good, that means there aren't any hidden creatures around here." That's ridiculous.

[JNAProductions]

They do have to make a save, so it doesn't necessarily auto-hit. Plus, you may kill a child in that instance.

You still need to target their square. RAW, maybe you can just declare you target Cate. However, we are not computers. We are able to apply common sense and logic to this, which would indicate that, if you don't know where Cate is, you have to guess which square to target.

[Theodoxus]

How do you choose a creature if you don't know that it's there? (The very definition of hidden).

[JNAProductions]

Well, it is magic. Again, per Crawford, the target can just be "that thing or person" that I pick. So long as she is within range and doesn't have total cover, she has to make the save. She does get a +2 or +5 bonus to the DEX save if she has half or 3/4 cover.

What part of Acid Splash indicates it has homing properties? It really seems like you're trying to abuse the rules here.

[JNAProductions]

Crawford actually went into this when discussing Fireball, where he said the target can be sort of like "To Whom it May Concern", saying that the targeter doesn't even need to know that the target is there. For Acid Splash, she may not be there, but if she is, she'll need to make the save if she doesn't have total cover and is within 60 feet.

Would any DM allow this? Really-I'm a DM here, and no way in hell would I rule that Acid Splash can target someone without you knowing where they are.

Again, as was pointed out earlier, you could, for instance, say "Acid Splash targeting anyone besides my allies within 60'," and find hidden enemies that way.

[JNAProductions]

It states that I can choose a creature within range. It doesn't contain verbiage that I must see them. Crawford states that a creature can be a target. Cover still applies as does the range limit, so I don't think this is approaching abuse.

We're not arguing that. I'd be 100% okay with you targeting an invisible creature.

HOWEVER! You cannot just declare that you target them without knowing where they are. If they are Hidden, then you target a square and hope you got it right. If they're not Hidden, then target them freely.

[Theodoxus]

Fireball <> Acid Splash. Fireball targets a point and explodes from said point, hitting (requiring saves) from anyone within the area. If they have cover, they get a bonus to their save, but hidden or not, they're making a save.

Acid Splash requires "choosing a creature". Without some pretty nice divination going on, one can't "choose" something that they don't know is there.

Point to a spell that targets a thing, not an AoE that targets a point in space and you might have an argument.

I know folk point to Crawford like some infallible D&D god, but he's just a dude, and as a dude, gets a lot of things wrong.

[JNAProductions]

You can target them without knowing where they are, just like with Fireball. They're targets whether they're hiding, whether or not you know they're there. Hiding doesn't help you vs. a Fireball. Same with Acid Splash.

How would you feel if you were, say, an Arcane Trickster. You've got Invisibility up, and your Druid friend gave you Pass Without Trace. You're level 20, rocking a +17 to Stealth (+27 with PWT), with Reliable Talent giving you a minimum result of 37. And then, you get nailed with an Acid Splash. The Wizard didn't see you, hear you, smell you, or notice you in any way-he just cast Acid Splash at "the nearest person who's not supposed to be here", which is what he does as a guard.

How would you feel?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Again, as was pointed out earlier, you could, for instance, say "Acid Splash targeting anyone besides my allies within 60'," and find hidden enemies that way.

That's not specific enough. You have to chose a single creature unambiguously (within the normal limits of precision). There's no logic involved with the spell, so it can't hunt arbitrary targets, but it can lock onto a single well-defined target.

There's no question of hit or not--it's a save spell, not an attack spell. Hit or miss only matters for attacks. You have to have line of effect to wherever the target is, but you don't need to see it. That makes it perfectly effective if the target is in the middle of darkness (but you know who he is for whatever reason). Same goes for any other spell lacking the "you can see" verbiage. You can absolutely fireball the darkness. If it hits a hidden obstacle, it blows up early. That's specified in the spell itself IIRC.

[JNAProductions]

The game doesn't favor buffs. Dispel Magic can take down all of one's buffs and I don't even have to know they're there, so long as they are within 120 feet.

So you'd be okay with getting targeted, despite the Wizard's, say, +8 to Perception making it absolutely impossible for them to notice you?

[Theodoxus]

lall's a troll. There's no point arguing. He'll never play at my table, I'll never play at his. Yeah, magic doesn't require logic, but it does require internal consistency. One can't target something that one has no idea is there.

[PhoenixPhyre]

lall's a troll. There's no point arguing. He'll never play at my table, I'll never play at his. Yeah, magic doesn't require logic, but it does require internal consistency. One can't target something that one has no idea is there.

There's a big difference IMO between not having an idea that anyone is there and knowing that a particular person is in range but not knowing exactly where they are.

I'd rule that you have to specify a single person based on observable criteria. The person with red hair and a scar: yes. The nearest enemy: no. And if there wasn't anyone in range or you gave an improper definition or the specified target were actually behind total cover you'd spend the action with no result (and wouldn't know why it failed).

[Theodoxus]

And I agree - lall isn't making that argument. He's essentially stating: "I open the door to the cottage/dungeon/manner - whatever, and cast Acid Splash at anything that's in there." As a DM, I'd say "cool your jets, you don't even know if there's anything there yet." He'd say "Doesn't matter, I don't have to see or know there's something according to the wording of the spell."

How you choose a target that you don't even know exists is beyond me. It's akin to the old Ale Wive's joke "I cast magic missile at the darkness". Yeah, funny... not gonna happen.

[PhoenixPhyre]

And I agree - lall isn't making that argument. He's essentially stating: "I open the door to the cottage/dungeon/manner - whatever, and cast Acid Splash at anything that's in there." As a DM, I'd say "cool your jets, you don't even know if there's anything there yet." He'd say "Doesn't matter, I don't have to see or know there's something according to the wording of the spell."

How you choose a target that you don't even know exists is beyond me. It's akin to the old Ale Wive's joke "I cast magic missile at the darkness". Yeah, funny... not gonna happen.

That's not how I read the OP--I thought that there was an identifiable target who is currently not visible. Ah, whatever. I'd require there to be a specific target and anyone who tried to pull the magic threat detector routine would get a PHB to the forehead.

[JNAProductions]

That's not how I read the OP--I thought that there was an identifiable target who is currently not visible. Ah, whatever. I'd require there to be a specific target and anyone who tried to pull the magic threat detector routine would get a PHB to the forehead.

The OP has made it clear that they're talking about targeting someone they don't know where they are.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The OP has made it clear that they're talking about targeting someone they don't know where they are.

That's a very different thing than not knowing if an enemy exists. I know there's a specific person within 60 feet, but I don't know exactly where: can cast just fine. I don't know if there's anyone within 60 feet or I don't know enough to identify a single person specifically: can't cast--not enough targeting data.

[Vaz]

That's a very different thing than not knowing if an enemy exists. I know there's a specific person within 60 feet, but I don't know exactly where: can cast just fine. I don't know if there's anyone within 60 feet or I don't know enough to identify a single person specifically: can't cast--not enough targeting data.

Where is your line of sight? Can you see them?

[Coffee_Dragon]

I know there's a specific person within 60 feet, but I don't know exactly where: can cast just fine. I don't know if there's anyone within 60 feet or I don't know enough to identify a single person specifically: can't cast--not enough targeting data.

So, Steve the Sorcerer runs into a room where he feels pretty convinced Sly Halfling Bob is hiding invisibly. He casts Acid Splash naming Bob as the target, waves his arms around arcanely and ends with a mighty flourish in the direction of a startled goblin while shouting "Vitriol Apocalypse!" because Steve is considerate enough to call his attacks.

If I understand you correctly, you would rule that if Bob is there and not behind total cover, the hurled acid will fly not towards the goblin but towards wherever Bob is standing.

If Bob is not there or behind total cover, the casting cannot happen because the basic targeting requirements aren't fulfilled. When does Steve gain this information?

Before he begins the act of casting?

Before using an action?

Before spending sorcery points on metamagic?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Where is your line of sight? Can you see them?

Does it matter? Only if the spell says so. Otherwise, no sight needed. Otherwise being blinded would be a total bar to spell casting. No need to silence, just drop darkness on them.

[PhoenixPhyre]

So, Steve the Sorcerer runs into a room where he feels pretty convinced Sly Halfling Bob is hiding invisibly. He casts Acid Splash naming Bob as the target, waves his arms around arcanely and ends with a mighty flourish in the direction of a startled goblin while shouting "Vitriol Apocalypse!" because Steve is considerate enough to call his attacks.

If I understand you correctly, you would rule that if Bob is there and not behind total cover, the hurled acid will fly not towards the goblin but towards wherever Bob is standing.

If Bob is not there or behind total cover, the casting cannot happen because the basic targeting requirements aren't fulfilled. When does Steve gain this information?

Before he begins the act of casting?

Before using an action?

Before spending sorcery points on metamagic?

When the spell fails after his action is used. Including any metamagic points spent. I'd likely let him keep a spell slot if it took one, but that's because I'm nice, not because the rules demand it.

Same as any targeting failure. You tried to cast Eldritch blast on a statue (not a creature)? You learn after the action. If you abuse it, we'll have a little talk out of game about it.

Edit: and yes, if Bob's there and not behind total cover, it strikes him and he has to make the save. Attack spells are projectiles--they go where you point and can miss/be dodged/deflected. Save spells aren't--they take more spiritual aim and are keyed to a specific target (unless they hit a point like fireball)

[Vaz]

Does it matter? Only if the spell says so. Otherwise, no sight needed. Otherwise being blinded would be a total bar to spell casting. No need to silence, just drop darkness on them.

Every spell says so. Check the general rules for spellcasting. So yes, it does. And yes, Blindness is a total bar to spellcasting that requires line of sight to something.

[Coffee_Dragon]

It actually occurred to me after posting that this case is similar to trying to cast on illusory targets, which has been debated before - I picture a 30-page thread featuring Segev and BurgerBeast.

I can't help feeling there's a difference, though. When targeting a statue or illusion you still know you have line of effect to your intended target and directing your magic that way. That's different from naming a target by identity in the abstract and relying on the magic to handle everything from there.

[krugaan]

I think the real problem is that acid splash is a throwaway spell that they didn't even bother to proofread fully.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Every spell says so. Check the general rules for spellcasting. So yes, it does. And yes, Blindness is a total bar to spellcasting that requires line of sight to something.

Then why do some spells say "choose a creature you can see..." and others don't? Why can you cast fireball at a point you can't see (as backed up by all the dev statements and the spell itself)?

Here's the quote from the SRD:



To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can’t be behind total cover.

If you place an area of effect at a point that you can’t see and an obstruction, such as a wall, is between you and that point, the point of origin comes into being on the near side of that obstruction.


Note it specifically allows you to place an area of effect at a point you can't see. There is no claim that for all spells you must be able to see your target.


It actually occurred to me after posting that this case is similar to trying to cast on illusory targets, which has been debated before - I picture a 30-page thread featuring Segev and BurgerBeast.

I can't help feeling there's a difference, though. When targeting a statue or illusion you still know you have line of effect to your intended target and directing your magic that way. That's different from naming a target by identity in the abstract and relying on the magic to handle everything from there.

It is very similar.

But that's the way it is. There is no indication in the general rules text that requires you to be able to see your target. Line of effect is required, line of sight is only required if the spell requires it. In fact, many spells specifically don't require you to be able to see your target. You can't infer extra rules beyond what's there unless you're stepping into house-rule territory.

[PhoenixPhyre]

As a note: here are all the SRD spells that explicitly require sight ("target you can see")


Animal Messenger
Animal Shapes
Arcane Hand (Bigsby's)--"space that you can see"
Arcane Sword (Mordenkainen's)--don't have to see the initial space, but do have to see where you want it to move to
Bane
Banishment
Black Tentacles--"square on ground that you can see"
Blight
Blindness/Deafness
Call Lightning--specifically calls out "point you can see" twice, including saying it fails if you can't see an appropriate spot of sky.
Chain Lightning--initial target only
Charm Person
Command
Conjure * (all have the same "space that you can see" language)
Demiplane
Detect Thoughts
Disintegrate
Divine Word
Dominate *
Earthquake
Enlarge/Reduce
Enthrall
Eyebite
Faithful Hound (Mordenkainen's)
Feeblemind
Find Traps (only functions within line of sight)
Finger of Death
Flesh to Stone
Floating Disk (Tenser's)
Gate
Geas
Harm
Haste
Heal
Healing Word
Heat Metal
Hideous Laughter (Tasha's)
Hold *
Imprisonment
Irresistible Dance (Otto's)
Knock
Levitate
Magic Circle
Magic Jar (possession portion)
Magic Missile
Magic Mouth
Major Image
Mass Heal
Mass Healing Word
Mass Suggestion
Maze
Meteor Swarm
Misty Step
Modify Memory
Passwall
Phantasmal Killer
Polymorph
Power Word *
Prayer of Healing
Sacred Flame
Storm of Vengeance
Suggestion (also requires them to be able to hear and understand you)
Telekinesis
Teleport (only the things/people you want to bring along require LoS)
True Polymorph



Note that most attack spells don't require sight. Neither do lots of other spells, including all touch-range spells. Being invisible (or obscured by darkness) doesn't protect you if the caster knows you're there. Requiring LoS for all spells would make a large portion of the spells absolutely useless--all the "Locate X" or divination spells are only useful if you can't see your target. Same with teleport, planeshift, and a whole bunch of others.

[Coffee_Dragon]

But that's the way it is. There is no indication in the general rules text that requires you to be able to see your target. Line of effect is required, line of sight is only required if the spell requires it. In fact, many spells specifically don't require you to be able to see your target. You can't infer extra rules beyond what's there unless you're stepping into house-rule territory.

Well, if we're talking strict RAW, and in the absence of a dedicated rule for mistaken or speculative casting, if a player declares an invalid action for any reason the DM should inform them and ask for new input. The player is then faced with the prospect/risk of metagaming any knowledge gained. One thing they can't do (again, by strict RAW) is say, "Well, I was sure that was valid, so I do fizzly noises and cross out a slot", because there's no mechanism for that either.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Oh! I just remembered a funny thing from one of those 30-page threads, about targeting by abstract naming. You face three hobos, one of which is Bob in disguise. You have no freaking idea which one. You cast Acid Splash, naming Bob as the target. Does the acid streak unerringly to the real Bob?

[gloryblaze]

Going back to the OP's scenario, here's how it would probably play out at my table:

DM: "On her turn, Cate begins muttering arcane words -
Andi: "I try to identify the spell as a reaction! 12."
DM: "You're unable to tell what the spell is. Meanwhile, Cate finishes chanting the spell, and she suddenly vanishes. Alex, it's your turn."
Alex: "I start chanting a spell of my own: 'Blood of the earth, burn my enemies like liquid fire. Rust their armor and melt their flesh. Acid Splash!' I then whisper the name 'Cate' into the darkness to designate her as my target. 6 acid damage on a failed save."
DM: *rolls a d20* "Alright, Andi, your turn."

Did Cate teleport or turn invisible? Did acid splash hit her? The world may never know. The scenario would have played out the same either way.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Well, if we're talking strict RAW, and in the absence of a dedicated rule for mistaken or speculative casting, if a player declares an invalid action for any reason the DM should inform them and ask for new input. The player is then faced with the prospect/risk of metagaming any knowledge gained. One thing they can't do (again, by strict RAW) is say, "Well, I was sure that was valid, so I do fizzly noises and cross out a slot", because there's no mechanism for that either.

Actually, since there are no defined rules, there are no defined rules. The DM can choose to do anything he wants (within the bounds of things that won't incur book-facing from the players). They could rule that the slot is wasted, they could rule that the action is wasted, they could rule that you know as soon as you start casting. I'm in the camp that says that you waste an action (as if you took the Search action) but not a slot. You get information in return for your "wasted" action.


Oh! I just remembered a funny thing from one of those 30-page threads, about targeting by abstract naming. You face three hobos, one of which is Bob in disguise. You have no freaking idea which one. You cast Acid Splash, naming Bob as the target. Does the acid streak unerringly to the real Bob?

Remember, names have power in most mystical system. Even if it's not a true name, I believe that the magic will only resonate with the one who goes by Bob. Now if multiple go by Bob, you've got a problem. And that's up to the DM to decide how to resolve. I'd probably go with random chance as to which one it hits. If the player has met Bob before and knows more than the name, I'd let it hit the right one--the targeting is unambiguous. It's not just Bob, but it's that Bob.

[krugaan]

Remember, names have power in most mystical system. Even if it's not a true name, I believe that the magic will only resonate with the one who goes by Bob. Now if multiple go by Bob, you've got a problem. And that's up to the DM to decide how to resolve. I'd probably go with random chance as to which one it hits. If the player has met Bob before and knows more than the name, I'd let it hit the right one--the targeting is unambiguous. It's not just Bob, but it's that Bob.

That's ... uh... definitely not RAW. But flavorful!

[Christian]

I think I would rule that 'choose a creature' implies choosing amongst creatures based on information you have. So:

(Three hobos on the street)
PC: "I cast Acid Splash at Bob."
DM: "You don't know which hobo is Bob, or even for certain that any of them are. Do you cast at the one on the left, the one on the right, or the one across the street?"

PC: "I make a Wisdom (Perception) check as my action to see if anything strange is going on in here.
DM: "You hear footsteps, it seems like there's an invisible person in the room."
PC: "I cast a quickened Acid Splash at the sneaky invisible person."

DM: (rolls successful saving throw for invisible rogue) "OK. Next up is the barbarian."
OR

DM: (rolls failed saving throw for invisible rogue) "OK. Next up is the barbarian."
OR POSSIBLY

DM: (rolls failed saving throw for invisible rogue) "You hear a brief yelp of pain. Next up is the barbarian."
OR

DM: (pretends to roll a saving throw for the auditory illusion) "OK. Next up is the barbarian." (Yes, I just sucked away some metamagic points for a spell that didn't actually do anything.
But Acid Splash is a combat spell, not a divination. See any of the multi-page threads on casting Magic Missile at illusions for further discussion of this annoyance.)

PC: "I don't see or hear anyone in the room. But since I know none of the party is in there, I'll cast Acid Splash at the nearest person in the room, just in case."
DM: "You don't know of any individuals in this room to target. Would you like to look around?"

[PhoenixPhyre]

That's ... uh... definitely not RAW. But flavorful!

Ok, so quote the raw that says otherwise. I already quoted the only relevant section above, which makes no mention of that. So it's not required by raw, but it's well within and not against raw. It's firmly into DAM discretion territory, as are all but the most obvious targeting issues.

[Vaz]

Ok, so quote the raw that says otherwise. I already quoted the only relevant section above, which makes no mention of that. So it's not required by raw, but it's well within and not against raw. It's firmly into DAM discretion territory, as are all but the most obvious targeting issues.

No it isn't. You require line of sight. Prove you can see it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

No it isn't. You require line of sight. Prove you can see it.

Where does it say that? Specifically? Quote the language or at least give the section in the SRD/PHB. I quoted the only relevant section of the rules above. You have provided no evidence, not even a page number.

[8wGremlin]

Here are the relevant rules:



Targets
A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell’s magic. A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect (described below).
Unless a spell has a perceptible effect, a creature might not know it was targeted by a spell at all. An effect like crackling lightning is obvious, but a more subtle effect, such as an attempt to read a creature’s thoughts, typically goes unnoticed, unless a spell says otherwise.


A Clear Path to The Target
To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can’t be behind total cover.
If you place an area of effect at a point that you can’t see and an obstruction, such as a wall, is between you and that point, the point of origin comes into being on the near side of that obstruction.

Targeting Yourself
If a spell targets a creature of your choice, you can choose yourself, unless the creature must be hostile or specifically a creature other than you. If you are in the area of effect of a spell you cast, you can target yourself.





Acid SplashConjuration cantrip
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 60 feet
Components: V, S
Duration: Instantaneous


You hurl a bubble of acid. Choose one creature within range, or choose two creatures within range that are within 5 feet of each other. A target must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw or take 1d6 acid damage.
This spell’s damage increases by 1d6 when you reach 5th level (2d6), 11th level (3d6), and 17th level (4d6).


So to target a creature with acid splash you need.


a clear line to target
to choose a creature with in range


You don't have to see the target. it just has to be with in range, and you have a clear line to target.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Here are the relevant rules:

So to target a creature with acid splash you need.


a clear line to target
to choose a creature with in range


You don't have to see the target. it just has to be with in range, and you have a clear line to target.

Exactly. Spells tell you if you need to see the target. Many do, many don't.

THIS IS NOT 3.5. There, you needed both LoS and LoE for all spells. Now only LoE is required by default, and some spells (with a great variety of both) require LoS.

[Vaz]

Where is the target?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Where is the target?

At this point, you're trolling. Nothing requires you to select the physical location of the target. That's not mentioned in any of the general rules. All the relevant ones have been quoted, and you have no support in the text of the book. And your view would eliminate a good chunk of iconic spells that would be utterly useless. For example, take a touch range spell. If you have to see the target to cast a spell, you can't cast cure wounds on yourself if you have your eyes closed. That's utterly, completely, one hundred-percent absurd.

[Kuulvheysoon]

At this point, you're trolling. Nothing requires you to select the physical location of the target. That's not mentioned in any of the general rules. All the relevant ones have been quoted, and you have no support in the text of the book. And your view would eliminate a good chunk of iconic spells that would be utterly useless. For example, take a touch range spell. If you have to see the target to cast a spell, you can't cast cure wounds on yourself if you have your eyes closed. That's utterly, completely, one hundred-percent absurd.

More absurd than having a homing acid splash cantrip that can detect and hit invisible foes?

At my table, I do allow acid splash and fireball to hit targets in their area, even if the player doesn't know that they're there. But what I wouldn't allow is a random casting of acid splash to home in on the enemy that he has no idea where it is. I'd ask for a direction and/or distance, or a square on the map somewhere. If they hit, they can do damage. But if they're not there, they're not going to take damage. For me, it's less about targeting and more about knowing the general area in which to aim.

[JackPhoenix]

PC: "I don't see or hear anyone in the room. But since I know none of the party is in there, I'll cast Acid Splash at the nearest person in the room, just in case."

Correct answer: DM: "You're hit in the face by a blob of acid. Make Dex save and roll how much damage you'll cause to yourself if you fail."

[8wGremlin]

Correct answer: DM: "You're hit in the face by a blob of acid. Make Dex save and roll how much damage you'll cause to yourself if you fail."

Did they choose themselves as the target?
As that is what the spell says.

[Ganymede]

The big baddie, Thelrendion the Foul, has balefully polymorphed a bunch of villagers so as to look like him. They, along with himself, begin pleading that they are not the real villain. I foil his clever ruse with one spell.

"Acid Splash, targeting Thelrendion the Foul!"

The orb of acid streaks to the real Thelrendion, marking him for the rest of my companions.


That's stupid.

[JackPhoenix]

Did they choose themselves as the target?
As that is what the spell says.

Nearest person in the room. Unless he doesn't consider himself a person, or there's someone closer to him than himself, yes.

[PhoenixPhyre]

More absurd than having a homing acid splash cantrip that can detect and hit invisible foes?

At my table, I do allow acid splash and fireball to hit targets in their area, even if the player doesn't know that they're there. But what I wouldn't allow is a random casting of acid splash to home in on the enemy that he has no idea where it is. I'd ask for a direction and/or distance, or a square on the map somewhere. If they hit, they can do damage. But if they're not there, they're not going to take damage. For me, it's less about targeting and more about knowing the general area in which to aim.

Why not? Note--unless the target is hidden you generally know where they are in combat conditions (which casting acid splash certainly is) even if invisible. If you disallow casting spells against invisible targets, you're giving them the benefit of being hidden as well, for free. And that's totally not RAW. It reduces the chances from disadvantage (for attack roll spells like guiding bolt or chill touch, neither of which require sight) to no chance at all. Same goes for that person out in the darkness you can hear moving around but can't see.

You must have the following to cast acid splash (or guiding bolt, or any of the other spells that don't require sight) against an invisible target:

* Knowledge that someone hostile is there. No casting it as a magic enemy detector.
* Enough knowledge to unambiguously select a single target (or however many it calls for). If you've only heard multiple sets of footsteps, that might be enough. Maybe. But if you've seen someone who jumped into the darkness beyond your torch, you can target them with a save spell just fine.
* An action available, that will be wasted if there's no target in range.

This gives save spells like acid splash a use--they're more effective against invisible or unseen targets than a projectile spell, which tend to hit better. It also prevents the strawman of the "I cast it on the nearest creature that isn't friendly" (which is asking way too much of the spell, asking it to do logic to determine the target.

Again, casting save spells isn't about aiming. They're not dumb-fire projectiles. That's why they're save spells, not attack roll spells. There is no hit or miss for saves, there's only affected/less affected/unaffected. Save spells always hit their target (barring counterspell, globe of invulnerability, total cover, etc). That's the whole point of casting them.

This all is entirely in line with RAW, while yours isn't at all. It also makes touch spells useless if you're blindfolded and holding hands (a result that strains belief much more than an spell that is targeted on an individual, not a location. Spells only require what they say they do (plus the basic rules, which only require LoE). By adding a LoS requirement, you're heavily nerfing a whole lot of spells and empowering anti-caster strategies. It means that a caster is helpless without darkvision or against people 61 feet away in the darkness with darkvision, while a martial can always attack at disadvantage. It means that a caster who self-casts darkness can't use attack roll spells (which for a martial's regular attacks would cancel out, since they're unseen but blinded). You're treating two attack rolls differently without any textual justification.

[Kuulvheysoon]

Why not? Note--unless the target is hidden you generally know where they are in combat conditions (which casting acid splash certainly is) even if invisible. If you disallow casting spells against invisible targets, you're giving them the benefit of being hidden as well, for free. And that's totally not RAW. It reduces the chances from disadvantage (for attack roll spells like guiding bolt or chill touch, neither of which require sight) to no chance at all. Same goes for that person out in the darkness you can hear moving around but can't see.

You must have the following to cast acid splash (or guiding bolt, or any of the other spells that don't require sight) against an invisible target:

* Knowledge that someone hostile is there. No casting it as a magic enemy detector.
* Enough knowledge to unambiguously select a single target (or however many it calls for). If you've only heard multiple sets of footsteps, that might be enough. Maybe. But if you've seen someone who jumped into the darkness beyond your torch, you can target them with a save spell just fine.
* An action available, that will be wasted if there's no target in range.

This gives save spells like acid splash a use--they're more effective against invisible or unseen targets than a projectile spell, which tend to hit better. It also prevents the strawman of the "I cast it on the nearest creature that isn't friendly" (which is asking way too much of the spell, asking it to do logic to determine the target.

Again, casting save spells isn't about aiming. They're not dumb-fire projectiles. That's why they're save spells, not attack roll spells. There is no hit or miss for saves, there's only affected/less affected/unaffected. Save spells always hit their target (barring counterspell, globe of invulnerability, total cover, etc). That's the whole point of casting them.

This all is entirely in line with RAW, while yours isn't at all. It also makes touch spells useless if you're blindfolded and holding hands (a result that strains belief much more than an spell that is targeted on an individual, not a location. Spells only require what they say they do (plus the basic rules, which only require LoE). By adding a LoS requirement, you're heavily nerfing a whole lot of spells and empowering anti-caster strategies. It means that a caster is helpless without darkvision or against people 61 feet away in the darkness with darkvision, while a martial can always attack at disadvantage. It means that a caster who self-casts darkness can't use attack roll spells (which for a martial's regular attacks would cancel out, since they're unseen but blinded). You're treating two attack rolls differently without any textual justification.

I clearly didn't make myself understood well enough.

At my tables, you need to have a general idea of where they are. That's all I'm asking for. I don't care if you get it through a Wisdom (Perception) check, a spell or some other sort of effect or spell. I'm not asking for Line of Sight. What I'm asking for is there not to be a homing cantrip. Using the hobo example from above, saying you cast it at Bob isn't enough - you have no idea which one is Bob. But let me give you an Wisdom (Insight) or something similar? Now we're talking.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I clearly didn't make myself understood well enough.

At my tables, you need to have a general idea of where they are. That's all I'm asking for. I don't care if you get it through a Wisdom (Perception) check, a spell or some other sort of effect or spell. I'm not asking for Line of Sight. What I'm asking for is there not to be a homing cantrip. Using the hobo example from above, saying you cast it at Bob isn't enough - you have no idea which one is Bob. But let me give you an Wisdom (Insight) or something similar? Now we're talking.

That's better, but still very restrictive when darkness is involved. Corner cases like the 3 Bobs are are probably better handled on a case by case basis. After all, how frequently do you open combat by casting a save cantrip on multiple identical seeming targets? I'd pick a way that fit the whole scene, depending on how well Bob is known, the exact circumstances, etc.

I'm generally not fond of using extreme cases to test rules, because they're exceptional. Using exceptions for flow control is usually a bad idea. Hard cases make bad law and all that.

[RickAllison]

That's better, but still very restrictive when darkness is involved. Corner cases like the 3 Bobs are are probably better handled on a case by case basis. After all, how frequently do you open combat by casting a save cantrip on multiple identical seeming targets? I'd pick a way that fit the whole scene, depending on how well Bob is known, the exact circumstances, etc.

I'm generally not fond of using extreme cases to test rules, because they're exceptional. Using exceptions for flow control is usually a bad idea. Hard cases make bad law and all that.

I think where people were confused as to your intentions was in reference to having a hidden and invisible target. As in you don't have detected footsteps or other indicators as to your targets location because they are better at hiding their location than the caster is at locating them. It isn't that you can't see the target, but that you have no idea where the target could be.

The target could be 60+ feet away and not able to subjected to the spell. They could be adjacent to the caster and the right step will bump into them. They could be suspended on the ceiling. Regardless, the caster has no idea where the actual location is. The posited situation was whether knowing that the target exists was sufficient to target their location, and your responses indicated you agreed to that. The idea of it being a homing beacon was then brought up because that is what would be required for the posited situation; you don't know where Cate is, but you are targeting her, and the response seemed to say she would be affected by the spell. This would require that the Acid Splash must be a homing projectile. Based on your discussion in the previous post, I think you might have missed where it was posited that Cate was hidden and thus her location unknown.

[Puh Laden]

That's better, but still very restrictive when darkness is involved. Corner cases like the 3 Bobs are are probably better handled on a case by case basis. After all, how frequently do you open combat by casting a save cantrip on multiple identical seeming targets? I'd pick a way that fit the whole scene, depending on how well Bob is known, the exact circumstances, etc.

I'm generally not fond of using extreme cases to test rules, because they're exceptional. Using exceptions for flow control is usually a bad idea. Hard cases make bad law and all that.

That's interesting. My way of thinking is that when there's darkness, it should hard to tell what you're targeting. If you entered a completely dark cavern without any way of seeing, but you can hear that there are creatures around you, I don't think you should be able to automatically tell what they are unless it's obvious by their voices and/or languages (if they speak at all).

[Vaz]

At this point, you're trolling. Nothing requires you to select the physical location of the target. That's not mentioned in any of the general rules. All the relevant ones have been quoted, and you have no support in the text of the book. And your view would eliminate a good chunk of iconic spells that would be utterly useless. For example, take a touch range spell. If you have to see the target to cast a spell, you can't cast cure wounds on yourself if you have your eyes closed. That's utterly, completely, one hundred-percent absurd.

Not really, as the touch is what delivers it. And considering that you're always in touch with yourself (that's how skin works yo, be kind of leaky if it didn't.

When you get an answer you don't agree with, you don't call someone a troll.

[Tanarii]

This is just making me wish Acid Splash was a special Area of Effect affecting one creature's space, plus one creatures space within 5ft, or something simple like that.

[Theodoxus]

I still don't grok how you can choose a target you don't know 1) exists (because hidden) and 2) where it is (because hidden). This isn't Pokemon; you're not shouting to the universe "Cate, I choose you!... to take Acid Splash."

Choice requires foreknowledge. It's implicit in the common meaning of the word.

[visitor]

This really isn’t that different from a scenario where you face a group of enemies and cast say, hold person, and announce your target is “ the one with the most hit points” or “Bob the real hobo”

You can’t use a save spells “auto hit” feature to circumvent unknown knowledge.

So some save spells don’t require line of sight, and so have different interactions with invisibility, darkness, cover, etc. But they still cannot impart extrasensory “meta” targeting.

Maybe an extra perception check is needed. Maybe something more; maybe less. I think that will depend on each table and the particulars of each case.

[visitor]

I have foreknowledge that Cate exists. She doesn't stop existing if she hides.

Having foreknowledge does not impart the certainty of targeting. Does acid splash say hiding is no longer is a barrier to targeting? You still need to roll perception > their hide to target.

Most reasonable people would not allow a player to simply target "the real killer" in a murder mystery. The DM would respond, "You don't know that; do you target Professor Plum, Miss Scarlet, or someone else?"

For invisibility, I think that would depend on the DM. As invisibility is not auto-stealth, one DM might say, "You hear and notice the movements of an invisible being in the room. You can target it with your Acid Splash. I hope it's who you want to kill." Another might say you need a perception roll first to target it, or a roll just to notice it initially.

This is a case of finding something that is not specifically excluded in black and white text (like, "you didn't say you kept blinking: your eyes dry out and you're blind now!")...it requires a little judgement and common sense. And therefore is not a one size fits all scenario.

Really, I think in a honest-to-God real game practically everyone is in agreement on how this would go down. It is significant to realize some spells do not require sight; but you are nit picking RAW to extrapolate the targeting rules into something silly. It doesn't pass the smell test (unless that's the kind of game you run as DM).

[visitor]

Per Crawford, a target is "that thing or person you picked". I picked Cate. It's that simple.

And the equally simple answer is you can't make Cate a target just by saying so.

Are you arguing that Crawford meant that his statement was complete and all encompassing? That by "picking" a thing or person, no other circumstances not explicitly written or mentioned matters?

Again, you could run your games that way. Maybe everyone you play with loves it. Great!

[Coffee_Dragon]

Per Crawford, a target is "that thing or person you picked". I picked Cate. It's that simple.

"A hobo charges towards you."

"I cast Acid Splash at the hobo!"

"OK, who are you targeting?"

"The hobo, of course."

"No, I mean, who is it? Who is the hobo? What is the identity of your target? Who is it that you pick? What's their etheric social security number? It's that simple."

"Uh..."

"Apparently you don't know who you're targeting, so you can't cast and forfeit your action. The hobo hits you for 362 damage."

[Kuulvheysoon]

Alright, consider the following.

You enter the lair of Elkhazel the wraith. You are a human with no special ability to see in the darkness, and no spells active. From all reports that you have heard, the cavern is a rough hemisphere 50 feet in diameter. Can you take a single step into the cavern and declare that you're casting acid splash at Elkhazel the wraith?

I, the DM ask you where you wish to cast it. My player says at the monster. I ask for a Perception check (at disadvantage), and he lucks out and rolls a 16 and a 19. The 16 is enough to detect the wraith, enough that I'd let him target him with a targeted spell.

You, lall, say "okay, your acid splash cantrip shoots directly forward and you hear a hiss of pain as the wraith is hurt by your spell."

Am I correct in my assumption? If not, feel free to correct me on how it would work at your table. I'm honestly curious.

Regardless, it's clear that we play very different games of D&D 5E. And you want to know the best part? That's okay. We play whatever makes us and our players happiest.

[Vaz]

I have foreknowledge that Cate exists. She doesn't stop existing if she hides.
You need to study you philosophy more. Existence doesn't equal perception of such and perception doesn' t equal existence.

[Vaz]

"Choose a creature within range..."

What creature? You cant see **** sunshine.

[Tanarii]

Alright, consider the following.

You enter the lair of Elkhazel the wraith. You are a human with no special ability to see in the darkness, and no spells active. From all reports that you have heard, the cavern is a rough hemisphere 50 feet in diameter. Can you take a single step into the cavern and declare that you're casting acid splash at Elkhazel the wraith?
In this scenario, have you just seen Ezkhazel the wraith in the last minute or so?

Edit: Have you ever seen Ezkhazel the wraith? Seen a portrait of them? Read a description of them? Read their memoirs or autobiography? Read a biography by another historian?

Basically, do you have any way that you have person knowledge of positive identification of Ezkhazal the wraiths appearance or personality?

Do you even know their name?

So that I understand what you're really asking.

[HolyDraconus]

Hes right though. 5e handles spells a lot differently, and maybe this is the trade off for reduced power.

[Vaz]

In this scenario, have you just seen Ezkhazel the wraith in the last minute or so?

Do you see him now? Why minute? Does it have to be actual, or a likeness? What about a caricature? Cartoon? Stick figure? Vague mental inage?


Hes right though. 5e handles spells a lot differently, and maybe this is the trade off for reduced power.

Prove he is right.

[Solusek]

At my table, I do allow acid splash and fireball to hit targets in their area, even if the player doesn't know that they're there. But what I wouldn't allow is a random casting of acid splash to home in on the enemy that he has no idea where it is. I'd ask for a direction and/or distance, or a square on the map somewhere. If they hit, they can do damage. But if they're not there, they're not going to take damage. For me, it's less about targeting and more about knowing the general area in which to aim.

This seems to me like the most reasonable way to play Acid Splash, and I think it is the designers intent for the spell. Unfortunately it's not how the spell is worded. I think rules as written it is a kind of homing spell. There should be errata.

[Kuulvheysoon]

In this scenario, have you just seen Ezkhazel the wraith in the last minute or so?

Edit: Have you ever seen Ezkhazel the wraith? Seen a portrait of them? Read a description of them? Read their memoirs or autobiography? Read a biography by another historian?

Basically, do you have any way that you have person knowledge of positive identification of Ezkhazal the wraiths appearance or personality?

Do you even know their name?

So that I understand what you're really asking.

I fail to understand the relevance of your questions, but let’s make make four separate scenarios.

In the first, you know him personally- Elkhazel announced his presence in cheesy supervillain style as he murdered your parents 12 years ago. You’ve done your research, looked into his life and finally gotten powerful enough to challenge him.

In the second, you’re a random murder hobo who heard about the wraith (including his name and lair description) from a random villager.

The third is as the first, but you just fought him under a moonlit sky and he rushed back to his base, with you 5 rounds behind him.

The fourth is the same as the second, but you also fought him five rounds before and you’ve just entered his lair.

I’m both scenarios, though, remember that I specified that you have no way to detect him (save for a skill check, but we’re currently assuming that we don’t need that, I guess?)

[JNAProductions]

This seems to me like the most reasonable way to play Acid Splash, and I think it is the designers intent for the spell. Unfortunately it's not how the spell is worded. I think rules as written it is a kind of homing spell. There should be errata.

I feel like no errata is needed, since basic common sense dictates that the spell does not know more than the caster does.

It wouldn't HURT, but I don't think it's required.

[HolyDraconus]

Do you see him now? Why minute? Does it have to be actual, or a likeness? What about a caricature? Cartoon? Stick figure? Vague mental inage?



Prove he is right.

3.x had spells, well, spelled out for you, with rules (books of them too) explaining them and how to rule on situations similar to this. This edition, what you see (or dont) is what you get. The fact that Crawford even backs up the OP interpretation is proof enough that it's intended.

[JNAProductions]

3.x had spells, well, spelled out for you, with rules (books of them too) explaining them and how to rule on situations similar to this. This edition, what you see (or dont) is what you get. The fact that Crawford even backs up the OP interpretation is proof enough that it's intended.

Ask Crawford about this situation. Not taking other things out of context-ask him about this exact situation. See what he says.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Targeting by abstract identification is a house rule. There is nothing to support it in the rules.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Targeting by abstract identification is a house rule. There is nothing to support it in the rules.

There's nothing opposing it either, except where noted. It's firmly DM judgment territory.

As devil's advocate here, what would be the consequences of allowing homing spells, but without allowing them to do logic?

That is, if a creature you know (because you were fighting/chasing/etc) is hidden but within range and not under total cover, the spell can affect them? Disallow the cases where you (the player) tries to target the nearest hostile creature or other statements that don't identify a unique creature that the caster knows about?

What would work better, what would work worse in actual game terms?

[JNAProductions]

It'd make, for example, the Arcane Trickster I wrote about earlier pretty much useless. Invisible with a +27 to Stealth, bonus action Hide, and minimum roll of 10? Nope, once they know you're there, you can't hide unless you have total cover or are greater than 60' away.

In addition, it just makes no sense. Why does the spell know more than you do?

[PhoenixPhyre]

It'd make, for example, the Arcane Trickster I wrote about earlier pretty much useless. Invisible with a +27 to Stealth, bonus action Hide, and minimum roll of 10? Nope, once they know you're there, you can't hide unless you have total cover or are greater than 60' away.

In addition, it just makes no sense. Why does the spell know more than you do?

I can see the first part (but how often do you *hide* (as opposed to just getting the advantage from invisibility) in combat?) As to the second, the creature is still there. It's hidden from normal senses, but it's still resonating with the Weave (or whatever ambient magic field there is). Many spells lock on to creatures you know--all the scrying-type ones certainly do, so it's not unreasonable. Otherwise spells like Alarm wouldn't go off if the person was invisible and hiding. As a divine caster, for example, the gods certainly know where the target is, and the god is the one whose power you're borrowing. Cutting yourself off from the weave entirely makes hiding way better than it should be.

Of course, on the flip side if they're behind total cover or out of range, you just wasted an action (at least). That's the down-side.

That's my difficulty here. Making a blanket ruling (no spell can target or interact with a hidden person directly) completely obliterates a whole bunch of useful spells, all to solve an edge case. Much better to take it case by case and step on abuse where needed (the aforementioned magic enemy detector, for example).

I also can't find anything in the rules that even partially militates against this reading. The spell can't go off if LoE is broken, but nothing requires you to know where the target is, as long as it's in range. That verbiage is just plain missing. Thus, it's totally a DM's judgement call.

[visitor]

There's nothing opposing it either, except where noted. It's firmly DM judgment territory.

As devil's advocate here, what would be the consequences of allowing homing spells, but without allowing them to do logic?

That is, if a creature you know (because you were fighting/chasing/etc) is hidden but within range and not under total cover, the spell can affect them? Disallow the cases where you (the player) tries to target the nearest hostile creature or other statements that don't identify a unique creature that the caster knows about?

What would work better, what would work worse in actual game terms?

Save spells are homing spells in that sense. But they still need valid targets. I'm sure Crawford's statement of "pick a creature or object to target" did not mean if you "choose" it, it's a valid target.

In your scenario, if the pc failed his perception vs hide roll, you possible allow blind fire of acid splash. Choose a spot and cross your fingers.

A similar question would be if your enemy cast darkness or fog cloud on himself. The spell doesn't need line of sight, but would you allow auto-targeting as the player would be unsure exactly where the enemy is? Or there is a pre-existing area of darkness: you hear an entity approaching in the darkness: how would you handle acid splash?

Myself, I think those cases are like an acid flask/alchemist fire jug. You are allowed to throw it blindly, but may not hit the right area or it may not be who you thought. Spells that require line of sight would not allow you to even "fire" them into the darkness, but you could with acid splash.

[Christian]

Correct answer: DM: "You're hit in the face by a blob of acid. Make Dex save and roll how much damage you'll cause to yourself if you fail."

LOL. I was imagining the caster looking into the room from outside the door. But that situation is certainly funnier.

[gloryblaze]

Regarding the AT with +27 stealth - how exactly does this screw him? If he's hidden in a room with a wizard and the wizard knows he's there but not where, and the wizard hits him with acid splash, what's the problem? The rogue is still hidden. He can still do whatever he wants, he's just taken xd6 damage (or not, since his Dex is so high). The wizard still doesn't know where he is. As far as I recall (I could be wrong), taking damage does not end the hidden condition or the invisible condition. All this rule does is give the wizard a way to plink the rogue with xd6 damage whenever the rogue is within 60 feet, it doesn't let the wizard locate the rogue or make the rogue not hidden anymore.

[Vaz]

3.x had spells, well, spelled out for you, with rules (books of them too) explaining them and how to rule on situations similar to this. This edition, what you see (or dont) is what you get. The fact that Crawford even backs up the OP interpretation is proof enough that it's intended.

Yeah sweet. You can't choose a creature you can't percieve.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Save spells are homing spells in that sense. But they still need valid targets. I'm sure Crawford's statement of "pick a creature or object to target" did not mean if you "choose" it, it's a valid target.

In your scenario, if the pc failed his perception vs hide roll, you possible allow blind fire of acid splash. Choose a spot and cross your fingers.

A similar question would be if your enemy cast darkness or fog cloud on himself. The spell doesn't need line of sight, but would you allow auto-targeting as the player would be unsure exactly where the enemy is? Or there is a pre-existing area of darkness: you hear an entity approaching in the darkness: how would you handle acid splash?

Myself, I think those cases are like an acid flask/alchemist fire jug. You are allowed to throw it blindly, but may not hit the right area or it may not be who you thought. Spells that require line of sight would not allow you to even "fire" them into the darkness, but you could with acid splash.

Darkness and fog cloud don't hide you (by default). The caster still knows exactly where the enemy is (again, unless they hide successfully). Since it's a save, no disadvantage/etc from the fog cloud. That's one major advantage save spells have over attack spells. Let's not obliterate that.

If hidden, I'd still probably let them cast it just fine. It doesn't break the hidden status (which is not invulnerability, after all. It stops a lot of nasty spells that require sight, but not all do). "You may be hidden from mortal eyes, but you're not hidden from the Weave!" the wizard shouts, finishing with the arcane phrases of acid splash. All it does is some damage. All the real Save-or-suck spells require LoS explicitly.

As I said, I don't understand the harm. Yes, hidden rogues are slightly inconvenienced--damage doesn't do anything but damage to them, doesn't break hidden or invisibility. It removes an "I Win" button, but doesn't grant any. If the players are using it as a monster detector...well, that's just stupid. Let it work once or twice, then throw in a "friendly" or neutral character that gets zapped. Maybe a flumph. Oh wait, those are evil and deserve to die...

[Coffee_Dragon]

Regarding the AT with +27 stealth - how exactly does this screw him? If he's hidden in a room with a wizard and the wizard knows he's there but not where, and the wizard hits him with acid splash, what's the problem? The rogue is still hidden.

I would guess that at most tables spell descriptions - in this case, an acid blob being hurled at the target - are represented in the narrative and valid to act on, so the target's location would be pinpointed.

[Tanarii]

I fail to understand the relevance of your questions, but let’s make make four separate scenarios.Theyre not relevant to me, but they potentially could be to someone that claims "choose a target" means something other than "target you can positively identify the location of, or guess at the location of". They all indicate different ways of being able to identify the target you are choosing.



That's my difficulty here. Making a blanket ruling (no spell can target or interact with a hidden person directly) completely obliterates a whole bunch of useful spells, all to solve an edge case.Well yes, but that's a stupid extreme house rule in the opposite direction of the stupid extreme ruling that Acid Splash can automatically affect targets you don't know the location of in any way.

Whereas a blanket ruling that offensive spells that require you choose a creature, but allow one you cannot see, should be ruled the same way as an attack spell would be against something you cannot see, does not completely obliterate anything. You either have to detect their location (Perception check to hear them) or guess the location.

[JNAProductions]

Regarding the AT with +27 stealth - how exactly does this screw him? If he's hidden in a room with a wizard and the wizard knows he's there but not where, and the wizard hits him with acid splash, what's the problem? The rogue is still hidden. He can still do whatever he wants, he's just taken xd6 damage (or not, since his Dex is so high). The wizard still doesn't know where he is. As far as I recall (I could be wrong), taking damage does not end the hidden condition or the invisible condition. All this rule does is give the wizard a way to plink the rogue with xd6 damage whenever the rogue is within 60 feet, it doesn't let the wizard locate the rogue or make the rogue not hidden anymore.

What Coffee-Dragon says. Unless you rule that the acid appears in the Rogue's location without passing through any intervening area, it's a foolproof way to find someone you know is in the area.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Theyre not relevant to me, but they potentially could be to someone that claims "choose a target" means something other than "target you can positively identify the location of, or guess at the location of". They all indicate different ways of being able to identify the target you are choosing.

Well yes, but that's a stupid extreme house rule in the opposite direction of the stupid extreme ruling that Acid Splash can automatically affect targets you don't know the location of in any way.

Whereas a blanket ruling that offensive spells that require you choose a creature, but allow one you cannot see, should be ruled the same way as an attack spell would be against something you cannot see, does not completely obliterate anything. You either have to detect their location (Perception check to hear them) or guess the location.

That's a pretty tightly worded blanket ruling there. Why can non-offensive spells (or spells that target a point) be cast on places/things you can't see, but offensive ones can't? I can't find any rules support for that. From the rules, the default seems to be

A creature, object, or location (as specified by the spell) is a valid target if it has the following characteristics:

a) the caster of the spell knows of the proposed target's individual existence (not by class or type, but as a specific individual creature, object, or location).
b) the proposed target is within the range of the spell when casting is complete
c) the proposed target is not separated from the caster by total cover (except as specified in the spell, e.g. message)

Nothing in there reflects having to know its location, the direction to the target, or any such thing. Individual spells might (requiring LoS or requiring you to point at the target, for example), but the general rules don't say anything about this. Thus, it's either allowed by default or at DM's judgement (my position).

Any further restriction is a house rule, and significantly harms spell-casters to very little gain except making rogues more powerful. Is that a valuable tradeoff? It's up to the group to decide. No one's pointed out any actual harm cause by the default setting yet, except in the corner case of rogues hiding while invisible (and that's minor).

[JNAProductions]

And what do casters gain from this? What are some valid, non-abusive uses for a homing Acid Splash? Because this hurts ANYONE who uses Stealth. I used the uber-sneak Rogue as an extreme example, but this applies just as much to anyone else who wants to sneak.

Allow me to reiterate-I'm 100% fine with Acid Splash NOT NEEDING LOS. You can target an Invisible but UNHIDDEN target all you want. It's when the target is HIDDEN that you should have to guess a square, rather than merely unseen.

[Tanarii]

That's a pretty tightly worded blanket ruling there. Why can non-offensive spells (or spells that target a point) be cast on places/things you can't see, but offensive ones can't? I can't find any rules support for that.Sorry, it's a house rule, not a ruling. I changed my post before posting in one place but not in the other.

And the answer is: AoE spells that target a point do require you to know where you're putting them, unless they say otherwise. C.f. fireball. Acid Splash is just an AoE that they didn't make an AoE because it's a cantrip, so it's limited to one adjacent creature.

And not making this common sense house rule allows abuse like homing Acid Splash against targets you cannot positively identify the location of, which clearly was not the intent of the spell. This thread's existence is proof of the need for it.

[History_buff]

Invisible does not mean hidden. Invisible counts as heavily obscured and thus capable of being able to hide with no cover.

[JNAProductions]

It gives them a chance to do damage against an invisible creature, e.g. an Invisible Stalker whose invisibility can't be dispelled. I would use See Invisibility or True Seeing, but both of those could be dispelled (along with 10+ other defensive buffs) with one casting of 3rd level Dispel Magic. I can use Dissonant Whispers or other spells of level 1 or higher. Acid Splash is nice because I can shoot it all day.

I'll repeat: I have 0 issues with someone targeting an Invisible but unhidden target. However, a hidden target I would not allow it to home in on.

Do you understand the difference?

[JNAProductions]

If the target of Acid Splash is hiding behind full cover, it's not an issue.

But not every target will be hiding behind full cover. It's possible to hide with ANY cover or concealment.

[HolyDraconus]

Yeah sweet. You can't choose a creature you can't percieve.

So you respond with this. That's not a defense but I'm not surprised that you would resort to such tactics. It's on you to prove the statement wrong.

[Dudewithknives]

Just as a point of reference, JC has also said that Magic missile is not fooled by Mirror Image because, "you are not making am attack roll" so it ignores the illusion.

Then again the ruling that magic missile is considered one damge roll despite it being able to target multiple people was made as well, so take it for what it is worth.

So anything that is rules for naking an attack roll, do not apply for acid splash in the first place.

The spell specifies a creature within 60 feet, it does not however say target you can see, within 60 feet.

Also the rules for aoe spells do not apply because most of them are just placed in an area and it does not matter what creatures are there, not there, detected, hidden or anything. A spell that targets a creature does not use those rules.

[Tanarii]

Also the rules for aoe spells do not apply because most of them are just placed in an area and it does not matter what creatures are there, not there, detected, hidden or anything. A spell that targets a creature does not use those rules.RAW that is correct. But the purpose of Acid Splash is to provide an AoE-light as a cantrip. So the most rasonable to house rule it to treat it like one when you dont know where the creature us.

[Keral]

You guys do realize that to posit that acid splash has an in built homing device would basically mean that it could bypass cover in all the scenarios where the target isn't actually fully 'covered' by an obstacle? And by fully covered I mean 360°, like hiding in a barrel or something.

If you're casting it north but naming a creature sud-east from you then you would hit said creature provided it's within range, right? That means the spell could actually swerve and change direction. What's stopping it from changing direction and hitting someone behind a tall wall?

[Vaz]

So you respond with this. That's not a defense but I'm not surprised that you would resort to such tactics. It's on you to prove the statement wrong.

I have done. Choose what creature exactly? It's invisible, you can't see it.

[HolyDraconus]

I have done. Choose what creature exactly? It's invisible, you can't see it.

Which apparently isn't enough to stop the spell. Cause magic.

[Vaz]

Which apparently isn't enough to stop the spell. Cause magic.

Prove it.

If something cannot be percieved is it really there?

Choose one creature within range? What creature?

[Mellack]

How does scry find the creature you choose? It also finds a creature just by you choosing it. Magic.

[Kuulvheysoon]

How does scry find the creature you choose? It also finds a creature just by you choosing it. Magic.

That's one of the principal goals of the spell, which is a 5th level spell, I might add.

[RickAllison]

Remember that all the text of a spell is relevant here. For Acid Splash, "You hurl a bubble of acid," not "A bubble of acid travels to the target," or similar. As evidenced by the change to Glyph of Warding, where they removed the supposed flavor text requiring the stored spell to be harmful, those spell descriptions do matter. There is no discrepancy between how Acid Splash is treated and how Scrying is treated because, by the rules of the spell descriptions, they operate differently. Acid Splash is directly aimed by the spellcaster while Scrying has no such text.

We don't have to worry about Acid Splash homing because the spell indicates that the caster has to aim the projectile. How it would go:

PC: I Acid Splash Cate.
DM: Okay, where are you hurling the acid to?
PC: At Cate.
DM: Yes, but Deucalion [I don't remember if any name was given to the PC in the OP] has to hurl it. He doesn't know where Cate is to hurl it at her. You will have to decide where.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Scrying reads "a particular creature" and goes on to produce a spell-specific list of degrees of identification.

[HolyDraconus]

Prove it.

If something cannot be percieved is it really there?

Choose one creature within range? What creature?

Do black holes exist? They can't be perceived either. Yet their effects allows us to know they are there. An invisible target in 5e remains a valid target til it does something to remove itself from being valid. In most cases, the Hide action is enough. In others Total Cover is required. Acid Splash forces the latter. Cause Magic.

[Vaz]

Do black holes exist? They can't be perceived either. Yet their effects allows us to know they are there. An invisible target in 5e remains a valid target til it does something to remove itself from being valid. In most cases, the Hide action is enough. In others Total Cover is required. Acid Splash forces the latter. Cause Magic.
Good question. Black Holes are unmoving objects less than 5ft cube in size, can you create an illusion of one with Minor Illusion? Considering that sound and light waves can travel, it's clear that the illusion origin only needs to take place within the 5ft box, and then other sensory effects take place.

You can't target a black hole, you can only target based on its effect on the environment. Without the visual effect of the conglomeration of stars with faster rotation, we have a good idea that the theoretical concept of a Black Hole. You can only put stuff in a particular area. But considering you can't actually do that, and it specifies you have to target a creature, you have nothing which can actually detect the creature to which you have to choose.

"you know if there is X within Y ft of you, as well as where the creature is located".

There is also this within the detect spells. These are the things which are called Detect, as well as part of a spell, that's divination. Not conjuration.

Acid Splash is stupidly written, and that you think that a Cantrip which is created in your hand/mental control, and "hurled" at a creature, can magically seek out a creature within range that you do not know is there or if they are, where they are, is amusing. Why it doesn't require an attack roll with the fluff they've chosen is beyond ridiculous.

What the spell should say is select a 5ft by 5ft by 5ft cube, deal 1d6 damage to all creatures within that cube, because then that would make the sense of summoning an orb of acid wherever you want.

But then again, this is the same game where you can Eldritch Blast a Gnat off a bulls testicle from 600ft away, but can't hit a castle gate. Or a Suit of Armour until it moves, because hey, that's what perception means, being Indistinguisable.

[Theodoxus]

Acid Splash is a Conjuration spell, not a divination, not an abjuration, and certainly not an evocation spell.

Conjuration creates (or summons) an object, which then interacts with the environment. In this case, it is physically hurled at the chosen target. It's a save because dumb. I mean, it's a save because apparently wizards don't play baseball and the idea is that a splash of acid does as much as a face full of acid.

Scrying is a divination spell. It finds things, like Find Object. Its magic is specifically rooted in finding the unknown, the hidden, the inscrutable. Unlike Acid Splash, a Conjuration spell, that isn't.

Alarm is a abjuration spell. It wards against things. It probably has a tiny bit of divination magic... but maybe not - maybe it simply has a trip line and/or pressure sensors that can detect the very real solid invisible rogue trying to sneak into the warded camp... Unlike Acid Splash, a Conjuration spell, which doesn't have anything like that.

Fireball is an evocation spell. Evocations create energy (typically) from nothing and generally require a to-hit roll, though some are just saves. Those that require saves tend to be AOEs that can be placed with pin-point precision that is only affected by the potential of hidden objects that the caster can't perceive, which causes the spell to detonate early. Unlike Acid Splash, a Conjuration spell, that requires a chosen target.

If you're going to compare spells, at least compare the same damn school:

Acid Splash - choose target, hurl spell.
Arms of Hadar - PBAoE, no choosing required.
Call Lightning - choose a point; akin to Fireball.
Cloudkill - choose a point; akin to Fireball.
Conjure Barrage - PB Cone, no choosing required.
Conjure Volley - choose a point; akin to Fireball.
Create Bonfire - choose a point; akin to Fireball.
Dust Devil - choose a point; akin to Fireball.
Ensnaring Strike - Requires a weapon attack.
Entangle - choose a point; akin to Fireball.
Evard's Black Tentacles - choose a point; akin to Fireball.
Flaming Sphere - choose a point; akin to Fireball.
Grasping Vine - choose a point; akin to Fireball.
Grease - choose a point; akin to Fireball.
Guardian of Faith - choose a point; akin to Fireball.
Hail of Thorns - Requires a ranged weapon attack.
Hunger of Hadar - choose a point; akin to Fireball.
Ice Knife - Requires a ranged spell attack.
Incendiary Cloud - choose a point; akin to Fireball.
Insect Plague - choose a point; akin to Fireball.
Plane Shift - choose a creature within your reach and make a melee spell attack.
Poison Spray - choose a creature you can see.
Sleet Storm - choose a point; akin to Fireball.
Spirit Guardians - PBAoE, no choosing required.
Stinking Cloud - choose a point; akin to Fireball.
Storm of Vengeance - choose a point; akin to Fireball.
Sword Burst - PBAoe, no choosing required.
Tidal Wave - choose a point; akin to Fireball.
Tsunami - choose a point; akin to Fireball.
Wall of Thorns - choose a point; akin to Fireball.
Watery Sphere - choose a point; akin to Fireball.
Web - choose a point; akin to Fireball.

[Vaz]

Acid Splash is a Conjuration spell, not a divination, not an abjuration, and certainly not an evocation spell.

Conjuration creates (or summons) an object, which then interacts with the environment. In this case, it is physically hurled at the chosen target. It's a save because dumb. I mean, it's a save because apparently wizards don't play baseball and the idea is that a splash of acid does as much as a face full of acid.

Scrying is a divination spell. It finds things, like Find Object. Its magic is specifically rooted in finding the unknown, the hidden, the inscrutable. Unlike Acid Splash, a Conjuration spell, that isn't.

Alarm is a abjuration spell. It wards against things. It probably has a tiny bit of divination magic... but maybe not - maybe it simply has a trip line and/or pressure sensors that can detect the very real solid invisible rogue trying to sneak into the warded camp... Unlike Acid Splash, a Conjuration spell, which doesn't have anything like that.

Fireball is an evocation spell. Evocations create energy (typically) from nothing and generally require a to-hit roll, though some are just saves. Those that require saves tend to be AOEs that can be placed with pin-point precision that is only affected by the potential of hidden objects that the caster can't perceive, which causes the spell to detonate early. Unlike Acid Splash, a Conjuration spell, that requires a chosen target.

If you're going to compare spells, at least compare the same damn school:

Acid Splash - choose target, hurl spell.
Arms of Hadar - PBAoE, no choosing required.
Call Lightning - choose a point; akin to Fireball.
Cloudkill - choose a point; akin to Fireball.
Conjure Barrage - PB Cone, no choosing required.
Conjure Volley - choose a point; akin to Fireball.
Create Bonfire - choose a point; akin to Fireball.
Dust Devil - choose a point; akin to Fireball.
Ensnaring Strike - Requires a weapon attack.
Entangle - choose a point; akin to Fireball.
Evard's Black Tentacles - choose a point; akin to Fireball.
Flaming Sphere - choose a point; akin to Fireball.
Grasping Vine - choose a point; akin to Fireball.
Grease - choose a point; akin to Fireball.
Guardian of Faith - choose a point; akin to Fireball.
Hail of Thorns - Requires a ranged weapon attack.
Hunger of Hadar - choose a point; akin to Fireball.
Ice Knife - Requires a ranged spell attack.
Incendiary Cloud - choose a point; akin to Fireball.
Insect Plague - choose a point; akin to Fireball.
Plane Shift - choose a creature within your reach and make a melee spell attack.
Poison Spray - choose a creature you can see.
Sleet Storm - choose a point; akin to Fireball.
Spirit Guardians - PBAoE, no choosing required.
Stinking Cloud - choose a point; akin to Fireball.
Storm of Vengeance - choose a point; akin to Fireball.
Sword Burst - PBAoe, no choosing required.
Tidal Wave - choose a point; akin to Fireball.
Tsunami - choose a point; akin to Fireball.
Wall of Thorns - choose a point; akin to Fireball.
Watery Sphere - choose a point; akin to Fireball.
Web - choose a point; akin to Fireball.

That's a lot of words without a point.

Unless you seem to think that a Conjuration Cantrip can replicate 1st level Divination by simplying thinking 'nearest hostile creature' every time you cast it.

[RickAllison]

That's a lot of words without a point.

Unless you seem to think that a Conjuration Cantrip can replicate 1st level Divination by simplying thinking 'nearest hostile creature' every time you cast it.

It's a lot of words with a point. It is comparing Acid Splash to other conjuration spells and how they interact with aiming, in order to show that nothing else is remotely close to how Iall's interpretation would work.

[Coffee_Dragon]

A target is "that thing or person you picked". That's per Crawford, not lall.

You're reading too much into a basically tautological statement. It doesn't tell us whether by "picking" Crawford is trying to express a preference between abstract-identity target selection or battlefield-perception target selection. I really doubt that's what he's doing.

[krugaan]

He's trying to express that you simply have to choose the thing or person.

i'm pretty sure he meant something you know is there, not "hypothetical threat".

The latter leads to absurdities, as has been pointed out.

[Vaz]

Can't pick something you can't percieve.

If there are no eyes to see a thing (like for a born blind man, or a dog, the concept of the colour blue absent).

I think this forum is lacking any sort of philosophical application to actual science, wheb you're reading roleplaying a character).

Picking a creature can only happen at the instance.

If I went into a fridge, and cast invisibility on your sandwich, and I told you to identify your sandwich to me, you couldn't, as you have nothing to make it relevant. You can point at the box supposedly containing that sandwhich all you want, but you can't prove that there is even a sandwhich in there. Until you can get some other sensory aspect, such as sound, or taste to prove it is your sandwhich, and even then you have no proof it is your sandwhich. You can only make an assumption. So until you have some other sensory knowledge and can percieve a creature being present, you can't pick it.

If we have a piece of paper on each, and each write our name on it, and I hand them to someone, and they ask 'coffeedragon, come pick up your paper' and hand you the one with your name on it, it is not your paper if you see it was written in my handwriting.

Perception is everything. People who can see colour have a different perception to what is black and white, or R/G Colourblind. What one colourblind person percieves as green could be taught to another as red. If they grow up thinking what they know is red is actually green, well they'll pick the wrong thing.

So all you have is the immediacy of i can only target what I percieve, which unless the creature moves or speaks, or you have some way of determining where they are, you cannot target a specific creature.

If you are figjting a disguised creature, or someone under a pseudonym, and target the pseudonym character, it has no effect, becausd that is not who it is.

I mean, we're going round in circles, but philosophicall and scientifcally, if there is nothing to percieve something, then it cannot exist.

Even in law, evidence is only circumstantial, and it is only a matter of percieved infallibility which allows it to be permissible: formerly members of the cloth, or handwriting. Even video footage, as it may not be clear enough, or inconclusive to prove the connection, or cases such as doppelganger crimes)(ref the Jones case earlier this year).

'Because magic' means jack**** in a roleplaying game, and as much as you infer something, there is no conclusive proof that an otherwise imperceptible individual exists once they disappear. Such as illusions, actual doppelgangers, transmogrifications, physical disguises, or simply mistaken identity.

Which is where you get into the meta descriptions of the spell: can't pick something you don't know what s there. At best, you say 'that person who was there a moment ago' : but what person was that? What visual, auditory, or some other sensory knowledge do you have of a target? Abd how that becomes relevant to a literal acid flubber you 'hurl' at a target, suggests aiming, which is why it's either attack role re Ice knife, or save on an aoe after targeting a particular space.

[Battlebooze]

Acid Splash
Conjuration cantrip
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 60 feet
Components: V, S
Duration: Instantaneous

You hurl a bubble of acid. Choose one creature within range, or choose two creatures within range that are within 5 feet of each other. The caster may ignore invisibility, the blinded condition, and any effects that would obscure the target. A target must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw or take 1d6 acid damage.

This spell's damage increases by 1d6 when you reach 5th level (2d6), 11th level (3d6), and 17th level (4d6).

This seems pretty awesome stupid for just a cantrip. I'd call this at least a 1st level spell.

Seriously, I hate rules lawyers. If you think this is the way this spell should work, you've got issues.

[krugaan]

Acid Splash
Conjuration cantrip
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 60 feet
Components: V, S
Duration: Instantaneous

You hurl a bubble of acid. Choose one creature within range, or choose two creatures within range that are within 5 feet of each other. The caster may ignore invisibility, the blinded condition, and any effects that would obscure the target. A target must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw or take 1d6 acid damage.

This spell's damage increases by 1d6 when you reach 5th level (2d6), 11th level (3d6), and 17th level (4d6).

This seems pretty awesome stupid for just a cantrip. I'd call this at least a 1st level spell.

Seriously, I hate rules lawyers. If you think this is the way this spell should work, you've got issues.

The issue is that this is apparently what the designer of the game thinks, too.

[Battlebooze]

The issue is that this is apparently what the designer of the game thinks, too.

Sometimes I see where he's coming from, sometimes not. This is strongly in the latter.

[krugaan]

Sometimes I see where he's coming from, sometimes not. This is strongly in the latter.

Pretty much everyone is against this ruling.

There are several scattered pockets of "well it's RAW" and a few of "no it's NOT" left.

Any ruling that leads to absurdity like this is simply a bad ruling.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Edit: I'd love to be proved wrong about the following. But it'll take actual text evidence, not claims of "it's absurd."


Pretty much everyone is against this ruling.


But not with any textual evidence or valid reasoning. Here's the entire text of the relevant sections, with my commentary interwoven outside the quotes.



When you take the Hide action, you make a Dexterity (Stealth) check in an attempt to hide, following the rules for hiding. If you succeed, you gain certain benefits, as described in the “Unseen Attackers and Targets” section.


What benefits do you gain? These ones (and nothing else, by RAW):



Combatants often try to escape their foes' notice by hiding, casting the invisibility spell, or lurking in darkness.

When you attack a target that you can't see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll[1]. This is true whether you're guessing the target's location[2] or you're targeting a creature you can hear but not see. If the target isn't in the location you targeted[2a], you automatically miss, but[... irrelevant portion snipped]




[Nothing relevant. No mentions of attack rolls, saving throws, targeting, or any such thing]


The quote from 194 is part of the Making an Attack section and clearly only applies to attacks (spell or weapon).

[1] Note this only affects attack rolls.
[2] Doesn't apply to saves--it only is true for attacks (attack rolls). Saving throw spells can't miss (since that requires attacking vs AC).
[2a] This line is only meaningful if the paragraph applies. Which it doesn't, see [1]. This is the only section where "guessing a location" mentioned.

Thus, hiding makes you unable to be targeted by things that require sight (see below) and gives extreme penalties to attacks (disadvantage + auto-miss if wrong square targeted). But not saving throw effects. So far, no evidence.

What about obscurement (because being invisible grants heavy obscurement)?



A heavily obscured area [list of examples snipped] blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see appendix A) when trying to see something in that area.


What does the blinded condition mean?



* A blinded creature can't see[3] and automatically fails any ability check that requires sight[3a].
* Attack rolls against the creature have advantage and the creature's attack rolls[4] have disadvantage.


[3] Unless the spell or spell-casting rules (see below) require sight, no effect from this clause.
[3a] Casting a spell is not making an ability check. No effect.
[4] you're not making an attack roll. No effect.

So do the general spell-casting rules require sight?



A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell’s magic. A spell’s description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect (described below).

Unless a spell has a perceptible effect, a creature might not know it was targeted by a spell at all. An effect like crackling lightning is obvious, but a more subtle effect, such as an attempt to read a creature’s thoughts, typically goes unnoticed, unless a spell says otherwise.

A Clear Path to the Target

To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can’t be behind total cover.

If you place an area of effect at a point that you can’t see and an obstruction, such as a wall, is between you and that point, the point of origin comes into being on the near side of that obstruction.


No. Not at all. Sight is not mentioned. It is mentioned in a lot of spells, giving credence that sight is required on a case-by-case basis, not as a general rule.

Thus, there is no textual evidence to support the claim that saving throw spells that do not mention sight are affected in any way, shape, or form by invisibility or hiding. None whatsoever. You're "ignoring" invisibility and obscurement, just like any other effect that does not rely on sight does. That is, you're ignoring it because it doesn't apply. Cover applies, but not obscurement. Obscurement =/= cover.

The only leg to lean on is the "it's conjuration, so you have to throw it at the target." If it were a projectile effect that could miss or be blocked, it'd be an attack roll, not a saving throw. If you're right, then it needs an errata (either to make it an attack roll or add "creature you can see" to the text). Ask JC specifically about this question. Until then, the RAW is clear.

Let's look at a few examples of other spells that aren't aoe and don't require sight:

Chill touch requires you to make an attack roll. Against an invisible and hidden target, you'd have to guess the space, and have disadvantage if you chose correctly (otherwise an auto-miss).

Dispel magic: Does not specify that you must see the effect, creature, or object. RAW, you can dispel invisibility just fine, as long as you know there's an invisible object or creature there. If you're wrong, you spent at minimum the action, and probably the spell slot.

Dissonant whispers is an exact mechanical analogue of acid splash. Choose a target within range, they make a save. By the reasoning here, it works exactly the same.

So far, all I've seen on the other side is arguments by absurdity ("but it's absurd that..."). Those aren't convincing arguments--that's identical to "It can't be that way because I don't like it". There's been no text presented that would prevent this reading or even speak against it at all.

I'm forced to conclude that, by RAW, acid splash (and dissonant whispers) can hit an invisible, hidden target as long as the caster can identify them uniquely.

Does it matter? Not really. It's such an edge case that either way, it's pretty silly to worry about. It does give a (small) bonus to a less-well-used spell, and makes greater invisibility + rogue (slightly) less of a "I Win" button--it gives anyone with it something to do about the rogue. If the rogue self-cast, it might even break invisibility. And that's a good thing. It levels the playing field a small amount, buffing an under-powered spell and nerfing a powerful, lazy combo that otherwise doesn't have a lot of good counters.

[krugaan]

Edit: I'd love to be proved wrong about the following. But it'll take actual text evidence, not claims of "it's absurd."

But not with any textual evidence or valid reasoning. Here's the entire text of the relevant sections, with my commentary interwoven outside the quotes.


Lets be realistic ... would you ever abuse this, or, as DM, allow it to be abused in such a way?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Lets be realistic ... would you ever abuse this, or, as DM, allow it to be abused in such a way?

Nope. That's why I said it's an extreme edge case that doesn't matter. Make a ruling, move on.

Here's what I would require as a DM--

You have to have a reason to be casting the spell, and have a (non-metagaming) specific target in mind. "The invisible guy who just stabbed me" is a fine target specification, as is "that dude I just saw disappear." "The nearest X" is not a valid target specification--it requires the spell to do logic to determine which creature (if any) gets targeted. This fails the "pick a creature" specification.

As a DM, I wouldn't use it for an NPC unless "invisible people" were expected at that location, at that time, and they had a clear description (or picture) of the target. Even then, the fact that the guy is chain casting this spell would be apparent (and initiative would start) well before you're away from cover (a corner, a door, whatever) far enough to matter. The rogue could then snipe (plus BA hide) without an issue.

So it's a total meaningless edge case. I just care about the whole "you must have LoS for all spells" (which breaks everything) or "invisibility means immunity to anything individual" crap. Because it's nowhere in this edition's rules, and makes invisibility a much bigger spell than the text says it is.

[Theodoxus]

We're arguing past each other and not seeing the forest for the trees.

Let's take it back a bit.

This all comes down to what "CHOOSE" means.

Define that, and everything else falls into place.

Some of us are going with the common english parlance, where a choice requires information. Others are going with a different definition, where choice is just fluff and has no effect on the spell target.

If you go with the former definition, you know that choosing a target requires knowledge of its existence and location. That logically, you must know where to cast the spell, as the spell only has your information to go on. (I'm an old Amtgarder, so I imagine you're pointing at the intended target - but my bias has no affect on this ruling, just a visual representation of same).

If you go with the latter definition, you know that choosing a target is irrelevant. That the word "choose" is arbitrary. Just state who or what your spell is affecting and go on with your life, logic be damned.

[PhoenixPhyre]

We're arguing past each other and not seeing the forest for the trees.

Let's take it back a bit.

This all comes down to what "CHOOSE" means.

Define that, and everything else falls into place.

Some of us are going with the common english parlance, where a choice requires information. Others are going with a different definition, where choice is just fluff and has no effect on the spell target.

If you go with the former definition, you know that choosing a target requires knowledge of its existence and location. That logically, you must know where to cast the spell, as the spell only has your information to go on. (I'm an old Amtgarder, so I imagine you're pointing at the intended target - but my bias has no affect on this ruling, just a visual representation of same).

If you go with the latter definition, you know that choosing a target is irrelevant. That the word "choose" is arbitrary. Just state who or what your spell is affecting and go on with your life, logic be damned.

The bold part is the logical leap that I don't agree with. Existence, sure. Location? You can cast message on someone where all you know is that they're on the other side of a barrier some where. "That person that just stabbed me" is a fine target. There's lots of genre examples of spells auto-homing on targets, even when the target dodges and weaves or even teleports. That is, you're adding an assumption that's no where in the text, the game, or anything at all except your own head.

[krugaan]

The bold part is the logical leap that I don't agree with. Existence, sure. Location? You can cast message on someone where all you know is that they're on the other side of a barrier some where. "That person that just stabbed me" is a fine target. There's lots of genre examples of spells auto-homing on targets, even when the target dodges and weaves or even teleports. That is, you're adding an assumption that's no where in the text, the game, or anything at all except your own head.

Well, there it is.

You have a more mystical "true name" sort of target definition than most others.

Let this thread die a natural death.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Well, there it is.

You have a more mystical "true name" sort of target definition than most others.

Let this thread die a natural death.

Agreed. I think the positions aren't going to change any more, and it doesn't matter at all either way.

[Theodoxus]

The bold part is the logical leap that I don't agree with. Existence, sure. Location? You can cast message on someone where all you know is that they're on the other side of a barrier some where. "That person that just stabbed me" is a fine target. There's lots of genre examples of spells auto-homing on targets, even when the target dodges and weaves or even teleports. That is, you're adding an assumption that's no where in the text, the game, or anything at all except your own head.

What?!?


You can cast this spell through solid objects if you are familiar with the target and know it is beyond the barrier.

So now, stabbing you equates familiarity?

I can see where the disconnect is... [I can't say it, as it'll just be scrubbed anyway - but I get it.]

[Keral]

"That person that just stabbed me" is a fine target.


Is it? I would accept that knowing someone by name could serve to target him or her. But "the person that just stabbed me" [or any such vague variation] seems awfully non specific. What if it wasn't a person? And how far would you stretch the definition of person in d&d anyway? Any player race? Anything resembling a humanoid? Anything with sentience? What if it was a construct that just stabbed the guy, would you allow him to target it with such a statement?


Now, personally I'd lean towards the "you must choose the square, or at the very least a general area to launch the spell at". However, I could understand someone going into a cave and saying "I target Bruce the vampire" (provided it's the character and not the player the one with reasonable suspicion that he could be there).

Arguably, Bruce the vampire is a definite being. "The guy who just stabbed me" not so much.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Let this thread die a natural death.


Agreed.

Agreed, we should just stop posting in it. Geez!

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to find out which of these fourteen thousand frogs is a polymorphed rakshasa spy. Spell immunity this, sucker

[Tanarii]

Edit: I'd love to be proved wrong about the following. But it'll take actual text evidence, not claims of "it's absurd."



But not with any textual evidence or valid reasoning. Here's the entire text of the relevant sections, with my commentary interwoven outside the quotes.Valid reasoning against it: Acid splash is designed to be an AoE-light, not a homing-spell that lets you targets you have no idea where they are, nor even a positive way to identify.

Using the fact that RAW it's written as targets a creature instead of a point, doesn't specify targets you can't see (which is fine), and the rule for targeting hidden creatures only applies to attacks and not directly-targeted-attack-like save spells (like it should), is the height of both absurdity and rules-lawyering.

The question should be, how do we fix this absurdity. Not how do I justify this absurdity by quoting RAW.

Quickest way is to apply the rule for attacking hidden creatures to also apply to direct-targeting-attack-like save spells, requiring them to guess the location of a target they don't know where they are. Alternative would be to rewrite it as an AoE.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I said I wasn't going to respond, but...


Valid reasoning against it: Acid splash is designed to be an AoE-light, not a homing-spell that lets you targets you have no idea where they are, nor even a positive way to identify.


And this is already an error. You're presuming the intent, as opposed to actually letting the text speak. This is just another "I don't like it" argument. Not an actual text-based argument. Heck--I'd accept a tweet denoting RAI here. We don't have one. So the text is all we have, unless we want to house-rule.

There is no text backing up the bold statement at all. RAW is that location is irrelevant for save-based spells. Some require sight, some don't. By the text of the books there is no constraint prohibiting homing spells. Or even suggesting otherwise. All you have is your own mental model that forbids it that you're trying to promote to rule-status. My mental model (which requires no extra text, unlike yours) allows them just fine.



Using the fact that RAW it's written as targets a creature instead of a point, doesn't specify targets you can't see (which is fine), and the rule for targeting hidden creatures only applies to attacks and not directly-targeted-attack-like save spells (like it should), is the height of both absurdity and rules-lawyering.


Argument by incredulity is still invalid. Subjective judgement (the bold section) is subjective.

Irrelevant rules shouldn't apply where they're irrelevant. The number of spells that are broken if you must know the location ahead of time is huge (including many of the divination spells, all the distant communication spells, etc). To avoid this you have to either apply a special-case fix or add a bunch of epicycles. Spells do what they say. And only what they say--you can't import other reasoning in (without reaching for RAI or beyond).

It's true that this case is completely irrelevant to the game, but the kind of reasoning employed here is what I object to. Absurdity is subjective, not objective. To me, based on all the genre conventions and the text of the books, there's nothing absurd about a homing spell. Useless (in this particular case)? Sure. Absurd? No. Homing magic (even based on very flimsy identifications) are a stock device across most of fantasy, including D&D.



Quickest way is to apply the rule for attacking hidden creatures to also apply to direct-targeting-attack-like save spells, requiring them to guess the location of a target they don't know where they are. Alternative would be to rewrite it as an AoE.

And that's a perfectly fine house rule. I would have no problem with it. But it's a house rule, not the actual text.

[Vaz]

Your're promoting RAW, others are promoting RAI., how about promoting RACSD?

You throw acid that you conjure at something. What makes that a saving throw in the first place? Non proficient Wizards are suddenly spin bowlers?

[RickAllison]

Your're promoting RAW, others are promoting RAI., how about promoting RACSD?

You throw acid that you conjure at something. What makes that a saving throw in the first place? Non proficient Wizards are suddenly spin bowlers?

It's a saving throw because unlike Fire Bolt or Eldritch Blast, you don't actually need a direct hit. You just need to get it close enough so that the target is caught in the bursting of the bubble.

[Vaz]

It's a saving throw because unlike Fire Bolt or Eldritch Blast, you don't actually need a direct hit. You just need to get it close enough so that the target is caught in the bursting of the bubble.

Ah. So why do you have to target a creature?

[RickAllison]

Ah. So why do you have to target a creature?

Balance and simplicity. They didn't want to make a ranged cantrip that was a true AoE, so they made it target creatures with the potential to hit a second target. Probably wasn't the best way to handle it, but I would guess a deciding factor was they didn't want to make an AoE with a radius of 2.5 feet, which would be the equivalent if they went with a point-targeting system.

[Vaz]

5ft cube covers the AoE just fine, or have it like Ice Knife with no initial damage.as it is, it makes literally no sense.

[Zalabim]

Sure, you can use Acid Splash (or Chill Touch, Fire Bolt, or Eldritch Blast which all use similar targeting criteria) on Cate just as soon as you show me a clear line of effect to the target.

No, I won't do it for you. You're the spell's caster so you have to do it.

In other words, why would you make an attack roll spell with the same wording for picking a target guess the location but not a saving throw spell?


Your're promoting RAW, others are promoting RAI., how about promoting RACSD?

You throw acid that you conjure at something. What makes that a saving throw in the first place? Non proficient Wizards are suddenly spin bowlers?


It's a saving throw because unlike Fire Bolt or Eldritch Blast, you don't actually need a direct hit. You just need to get it close enough so that the target is caught in the bursting of the bubble.

Generally an effect requires a dexterity saving throw if armor won't protect you from it, and I think enough of us have seen Aliens to say that armor doesn't protect against acid.

[Aett_Thorn]

Whatever works for you and your table. Per Crawford, I can just pick Cate.

Have fun trying to convince your DM of that. It's a stupid ruling and not one that any competent DM would allow.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Did anyone but lall confirm that JC laid down the word on abstract identity target selection?

[JackPhoenix]

5ft cube covers the AoE just fine, or have it like Ice Knife with no initial damage.as it is, it makes literally no sense.

5' cube also means hitting up to 4 targets instead of 2, and copying Ice Knife means up to 9 targets. Too much for a cantrip.

[Aett_Thorn]

Did anyone but lall confirm that JC laid down the word on abstract identity target selection?

I can't get to the link that he provided from where I am now, so I can't confirm.

[Tanarii]

I can't get to the link that he provided from where I am now, so I can't confirm.
The link he provided doesn't say what he's claiming.

[Coffee_Dragon]

12:30 mark. Crawford: a target is "that thing or person you picked".

So, absolutely no shred of evidence for abstract identity targeting, and this thread's been running on nothing since page 1.

[RickAllison]

So, absolutely no shred of evidence for abstract identity targeting, and this thread's been running on nothing since page 1.

That pretty much sums it up. This is why we have that nice, little triangular button in the corner of the posts.

[JackPhoenix]

I picked Cate. How abstract is that?

Not at all. After all, you know she's there, and (at worst) her approximate location with 5' accuracy.

[Coffee_Dragon]

I picked Cate. How abstract is that?

Is this a serious question? The whole premise of the thread is that you can pick "Cate as identified by etheric social security number, whose corresponding creature instance will be looked up by the magic on Google Soulmaps", not "a creature of which I have some measure of battlefield perception, who also happens to have several abstract properties among them being called Cate".

[Aett_Thorn]

Not at all. After all, you know she's there, and (at worst) her approximate location with 5' accuracy.

Only somewhat. If Cate becomes invisible, then yes, you know her approximate location, and can cast the spell as normal. If Cate becomes invisible and successfully hides, then not so much. Sure, you can say that you "target Cate", but I would, as a DM, have you target her last known location, where she might not be anymore, unless you specify otherwise. The spell does not know more than the character or player.

Just because a spell description doesn't say "that you can see" doesn't mean that we throw out all sorts of in-game logic.

[JNAProductions]

After some thinking, and talking with a friend, I have revised my original ruling.

If you are attempting to target a Hidden person, you may target any two adjacent squares and hope they're in there. Since the Cantrip is an AoE-Lite, it seems fair to let you target two squares, rather than just one.

[Tanarii]

12:30 mark. Crawford: a target is "that thing or person you picked".


I picked Cate. How abstract is that?"Cate" is not concrete identification of a specific thing or person.

If your argument was based on "that creature I just saw a second ago" you might have some basis for your argument. As is, it's complete cow dung.


After some thinking, and talking with a friend, I have revised my original ruling.

If you are attempting to target a Hidden person, you may target any two adjacent squares and hope they're in there. Since the Cantrip is an AoE-Lite, it seems fair to let you target two squares, rather than just one.
That works if you're talking about Medium creatures that occupy one 'square' each. Acid Splash can target two adjacent Gargantuan creatures many 'squares' apart (center to center) or two adjacent Tiny creatures in the same 'square'.

[Dudewithknives]

"Cate" is not concrete identification of a specific thing or person.

If your argument was based on "that creature I just saw a second ago" you might have some basis for your argument. As is, it's complete cow dung.

Yeah, i want to see the DM who allows this:

Caster A is walking through the crowded market, with 100s of people all around when all of a sudden he is shot in the back by a crossbow bolt.
In response, Caster A just casts Acid Splash against "the enemy who just shot me"
The acid splash just pops up on a hidden, disguised and possibly even invisible enemy 50 feet away in a crowd of 100 people, as he is around a corner and behind a barrel now.

Umm, no, not happening.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Whoa, flashback to all the times we were fighting multiple hidden gargantuan creatures

[Dudewithknives]

Whoa, flashback to all the times we were fighting multiple hidden gargantuan creatures

Flashback to 3.5 when somehow a storm giant was trained enough to have levels in Shadow Dancer, and backstabbed me with a tree.

[RickAllison]

Whoa, flashback to all the times we were fighting multiple hidden gargantuan creatures

You mock, but one of the most terrifying battles my IRL game has had was against three Huge, camouflaged creatures (think Predator visibility). We managed to split them up, but they certainly gave us a run for our money. One was up in the canopy of the jungle we were in, and we gave up on trying to jump around the trees to hit the ting. Pretty sure I ticked off some druids with how liberally I started throwing out Fireballs...

[Dudewithknives]

Also, according to this very erroneous interpretation of something that JC just happened to say in a podcast, that had nothing to do with the actual spell or anything.

You are at the kings banquet, you know that Mike the master assassin is going to be at the banquet to assassinate the king, but he is a high level Rogue Assassin, with expertise in deception, expertise in disguise kit use, and has a class ability to have false identities so he could literally be anyone in the group of 100 people.

Caster A, or any high elf, or anyone with magic initiate for the right class.

"Oh, ok. I cast Acid Splash on Mike the Assassin."
Across the room, some random guy holding a wine glass gets splashed with acid.
"That must be him, ok kill him.

No, not only that but hell no.

[Vaz]

You mock, but one of the most terrifying battles my IRL game has had was against three Huge, camouflaged creatures (think Predator visibility). We managed to split them up, but they certainly gave us a run for our money. One was up in the canopy of the jungle we were in, and we gave up on trying to jump around the trees to hit the ting. Pretty sure I ticked off some druids with how liberally I started throwing out Fireballs...

Justselect a creature you don'tknow anything about other than it may somewhere be there, and watch it automatically hit. Just describe it as hurled, and it will automatically track.

[Coffee_Dragon]

flashback to 3.5 when somehow a storm giant was trained enough to have levels in shadow dancer, and backstabbed me with a tree.

CREEEEEEEEED!


gitp no like capital leterz?

[Tanarii]

Whoa, flashback to all the times we were fighting multiple hidden gargantuan creatureslol

It was the "multiple tiny creatures in a square" thing that inspired the comment.

I mean, haven't we all faced multiple pixies dancing invisibly on a pin that we just had to Acid Splash? :smallamused:


Yes, that Cate.
Then why don't you make that your argument instead of arguing you can identify your target by name? :smallconfused:

[JNAProductions]

That works if you're talking about Medium creatures that occupy one 'square' each. Acid Splash can target two adjacent Gargantuan creatures many 'squares' apart (center to center) or two adjacent Tiny creatures in the same 'square'.

I suppose that's true... But all the same, does my ruling seem that unreasonable? :P

[Tanarii]

I suppose that's true... But all the same, does my ruling seem that unreasonable? :POh no, I definitely did not mean to imply it was unreasonable.

[Vogie]

I don't think it's that big of a deal in this situation.

It would be the same as choosing a target in total darkness without blindsight. You could hear Cate move, see her footsteps, et cetera. Perception is not just sight. It even says that right in the Invisibility definition (https://open5e.com/gameplay-mechanics/conditions.html#srd-invisible), from the Open 5e SRD:


An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense. For the purpose of hiding, the creature is heavily obscured. The creature’s location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves.
Attack rolls against the creature have disadvantage, and the creature’s attack rolls have advantage.

There could be a myriad of reasons Invisible Cate can be hit, especially with a bubble of Acid which, and this may be shocking, splashes.

This sounds exactly like the Sack of Flour Argument from, what, 3.x? Except an opened sack of flour (or hurled paint splash) would 100% show the invisible Cate, while an acid splash would only reveal invisible Cate if she failed both the dexterity save AND the constitution save.

For those who weren't with us during Flourgate, the official WotC ruling was "flour negates invisibility for one round, and then everything goes back to normal next round".

[Tanarii]

So what you're saying is a Cate who has gone invisible, taken the Hide action, and moved from 60 ft directly in front of you to 60 ft directly behind you ... it's perfectly fine for Acid Splash to be hurled forward*, do a brief circle around you, and then home in on Cate? Because something something sacks of flour & invisible people?

*Lets not forget it's a hurled magical projectile targeting the creature, despite the lack of an attack roll.

[Aett_Thorn]

Also, if we go back to the OP: "We enter a room and after some dialogue, Cate, the baddie disappears. She could have teleported or gone invisible...we're not sure. I hope that she's within 60 feet and cast Acid Splash, choosing Cate."

You don't even know if she's there at all. She MIGHT have gone invisible, or she might be totally gone. Most DMs would probably let you target her previous space, or a space of your choosing, to see if she was there. If she's just invisible, then she'd make a save. If she's gone from that space, she doesn't. But if she somehow moved to another space on the map entirely and the player has no way of knowing that (it was silent and/or she's taken the Hide Action), then the player has no idea where she is, and can't hurl a blob of acid that somehow gains a homing ability.

[Vogie]

Here's the OP:


We enter a room and after some dialogue, Cate, the baddie disappears. She could have teleported or gone invisible...we're not sure.

There is no Hide action or cover indicated in the first part of the OP.

In 3.P Flourgate argument, Cate disappears, and Lall throws flour at Cate. If Cate the baddie has teleported, the flour will settle, and nothing is revealed instead of a mess. If Cate the baddie has gone invisible, she would be revealed for one round.

In the 5E Acid splash argument, Cate disappears, and Lall casts Acid splash (https://open5e.com/Spellcasting/spells_a-z/a/acid-splash.html)targeting Cate.


You hurl a bubble of acid. Choose one creature within range, or choose two creatures within range that are within 5 feet of each other. A target must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw or take 1d6 acid damage.

As there's no actual travel time or projectile indicated in the RAW. Which makes sense, as it's literally a bubble, which isn't something you can throw. As you pointed out, it's "magical".


If Cate the baddie has teleported, the DM would indicate that with whatever he or she normally says when a target is out of range.
If Cate the baddie has gone invisible and is not still in range, the DM would indicate that with whatever he or she normally says when a target is out of range.
If Cate the baddie has gone invisible and is still in range, Cate must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw or take Xd6 acid damage (depending on level). If Cate makes the save, the DM would indicate that with whatever he or she normally says when a save is made. If Cate does not succeed, she takes Xd6 acid damage (depending on level), and then makes a constitution saving throw to maintain her concentration. The DC equals 10 or half the damage taken, whichever number is higher. If she does not succeed THAT, then she loses concentration, and becomes visible.

[Tanarii]

As there's no actual travel time or projectile indicated in the RAW. Which makes sense, as it's literally a bubble, which isn't something you can throw. Uh ... you just quoted the rule that literally says you throw it, and thus by definition a projectile. :smallconfused:

And you're reading far too much between the lines of the OP if you're assuming the post was meant to convey that "Cate" did not move from the spot if invisible. As the OP's later posts show.

[The_Jette]

Here's the OP:



There is no Hide action or cover indicated in the first part of the OP.

In 3.P Flourgate argument, Cate disappears, and Lall throws flour at Cate. If Cate the baddie has teleported, the flour will settle, and nothing is revealed instead of a mess. If Cate the baddie has gone invisible, she would be revealed for one round.

In the 5E Acid splash argument, Cate disappears, and Lall casts Acid splash (https://open5e.com/Spellcasting/spells_a-z/a/acid-splash.html)targeting Cate.



As there's no actual travel time or projectile indicated in the RAW. Which makes sense, as it's literally a bubble, which isn't something you can throw.


If Cate the baddie has teleported, the DM would indicate that with whatever he or she normally says when a target is out of range.
If Cate the baddie has gone invisible and is not still in range, the DM would indicate that with whatever he or she normally says when a target is out of range.
If Cate the baddie has gone invisible and is still in range, Cate must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw or take Xd6 acid damage (depending on level). If Cate makes the save, the DM would indicate that with whatever he or she normally says when a save is made. If Cate does not succeed, she takes Xd6 acid damage (depending on level), and then makes a constitution saving throw to maintain her concentration. The DC equals 10 or half the damage taken, whichever number is higher. If she does not succeed THAT, then she loses concentration, and becomes visible.


The problem arises when you consider that the person didn't teleport away, isn't out of range, but has moved from the initial position. The targeted enemy is still within range, but no determination of his/her new position has been ascertained. The player is making the attack assuming that it will work, even if the enemy has moved. So, should the player expect the reaction of the enemy is still within range, and have its position revealed by the area the acid is conjured in/ flies towards? Or, if within range but in a different position, should the DM act as though the target is out of range, and have the acid conjured up/ flung in the original direction of where the enemy was originally standing?

[Coffee_Dragon]

Equivalent scenario: Steve the Sorcerer is wary of Bob the Sneak messing around in his study. Every morning when entering the study, Steve casts Acid Splash targeting Bob. There's no reason why, at any given point in time, Bob should be anywhere near Steve's study.

Is it the case that on every day when Bob isn't around, nothing happens because Steve realizes his targeting was invalid and is happy with his reverse divination, but if Bob is actually in range and line of effect, he gets acided?

My answer: no. Each day when Steve does this without perceiving an intruder in any way, "Bob" is not a valid choice of target. If Steve thinks he perceives an intruder, that's the target regardless of whether it's Bob or not.

[JNAProductions]

Basically, the main thing is this:

Some people are claiming you can target a Hidden creature without needing to know their location, whether via Blindsight, a good Perception check, or any other way of ascertaining their location. The OP might not have been clear in their first post, but they made it clear later on that that's what they're talking about.

I totally agree you can target an Invisible but not Hidden creature with Acid Splash without any issues. You know where they are-you can hear them breathing, their feet shuffling, whatever.

But if they successfully make a Stealth check against your passive or active Perception, you're gonna have to guess a square.

[krugaan]

Acid splash is evocation (right?), not divination.

Yet people in this thread are continually attributing magical information gathering qualities to it.

Oh wait.

[JNAProductions]

Acid splash is evocation (right?), not divination.

Yet people in this thread are continually attributing magical information gathering qualities to it.

Oh wait.

Conjuration, actually. Still not Divination.

[Vogie]

Uh ... you just quoted the rule that literally says you throw it, and thus by definition a projectile. :smallconfused:

Not necessarily - It state's that it is hurled, but is not a projectile. A projectile is a defined word in RAW - it is tied to a ranged attack. For example, Scorching Ray reads "You create three rays of fire and hurl them at targets within range. You can hurl them at one target or several. Make a ranged spell attack for each". The rays are projectiles because there is a ranged spell attack, not because they are hurled.

Just like if Bob is hiding behind a freestanding bookshelf, and Alice pushes it, not knowing Bob is there. It'd be a strength check to knock the shelf over. While Bob may take damage due to a falling bookshelf, the push isn't an attack, as an attack is something that is defined by RAW.

A ranged attack is defined in RAW as "sending projectiles to strike a foe at a distance"

Theoretically, due to the lack of context behind the word hurl in Acid Splash, a DM could rule that Lall is vomiting the bubble into existence. This context is in place in some of the spells (for example, Freezing Sphere, the sphere in question is hurled in the context of a stone launched from a sling), but is not in place for Acid splash, or the Hurl Flame ability of Efreeti and certain devils.


I totally agree you can target an Invisible but not Hidden creature with Acid Splash without any issues. You know where they are-you can hear them breathing, their feet shuffling, whatever.

Precisely.

[Tanarii]

A projectile is a defined word in RAW - it is tied to a ranged attackCitation needed. PHB page quote that "projectile"= ranged attack please.

I was using the term in plain english to mean "object thrown or shot from something", but if there's a specific game mechanical term then I'll retract that.

[Keral]

So you hurl it, but in truth it goes through the space time continuum and actually appears right on the target?

[Vaz]

So you hurl it, but in truth it goes through the space time continuum and actually appears right on the target?

It literally is more powerful than true naming.

[krugaan]

So you hurl it, but in truth it goes through the space time continuum and actually appears right on the target?

To be fair ... it is magic.

[Tanarii]

To be fair ... it is magic.
It seems weird you need to create it on your person and hurl it in that case. And it shouldn't be affected by cover, which as a Dex save, it is.

That's an interesting point actually. Since Acid Splasg can apparent home around corners / teleport past obstacles, shouldn't it get to ignore cover? How do you even determine if cover applies? I mean, clearly a straight line between the caster and the target isn't the way to do it.

[smcmike]

Oh, man, another one of THESE threads.

I love it.

[Battlebooze]

Acid splash is actually a 9th level divination spell masquerading as a cantrip. Just walk around all day casting at "The one who will save us!" or, "The secret murderer." and wait for it to work. Hope they fail their save of course.

[krugaan]

It seems weird you need to create it on your person and hurl it in that case. And it shouldn't be affected by cover, which as a Dex save, it is.

That's an interesting point actually. Since Acid Splasg can apparent home around corners / teleport past obstacles, shouldn't it get to ignore cover? How do you even determine if cover applies? I mean, clearly a straight line between the caster and the target isn't the way to do it.

The shortest distance between two points is apparently torturous rules lawyering, lol.

[Tanarii]

Oh, man, another one of THESE threads.

I love it.

Fun aren't they? We all get to either assume our visualization must be correct and the mechanics are screwy, or insist or raw even when it means ridiculous in-world visualization. :smallsmile:

[Kuulvheysoon]

Basically, the main thing is this:

Some people are claiming you can target a Hidden creature without needing to know their location, whether via Blindsight, a good Perception check, or any other way of ascertaining their location. The OP might not have been clear in their first post, but they made it clear later on that that's what they're talking about.

I totally agree you can target an Invisible but not Hidden creature with Acid Splash without any issues. You know where they are-you can hear them breathing, their feet shuffling, whatever.

But if they successfully make a Stealth check against your passive or active Perception, you're gonna have to guess a square.
That's actually not what the OP thinks - I made an example for them and I straight up assumed that I knew how they were seeing it, and they agreed.

Alright, consider the following.

You enter the lair of Elkhazel the wraith. You are a human with no special ability to see in the darkness, and no spells active. From all reports that you have heard, the cavern is a rough hemisphere 50 feet in diameter. Can you take a single step into the cavern and declare that you're casting acid splash at Elkhazel the wraith?

I, the DM ask you where you wish to cast it. My player says at the monster. I ask for a Perception check (at disadvantage), and he lucks out and rolls a 16 and a 19. The 16 is enough to detect the wraith, enough that I'd let him target him with a targeted spell.

You, lall, say "okay, your acid splash cantrip shoots directly forward and you hear a hiss of pain as the wraith is hurt by your spell."

Am I correct in my assumption? If not, feel free to correct me on how it would work at your table. I'm honestly curious.

Regardless, it's clear that we play very different games of D&D 5E. And you want to know the best part? That's okay. We play whatever makes us and our players happiest.


Yes, that's correct Kuulvheysoon.

[Keral]

It seems weird you need to create it on your person and hurl it in that case. And it shouldn't be affected by cover, which as a Dex save, it is.

That's an interesting point actually. Since Acid Splasg can apparent home around corners / teleport past obstacles, shouldn't it get to ignore cover? How do you even determine if cover applies? I mean, clearly a straight line between the caster and the target isn't the way to do it.

I think that's what I asked a few pages back...

[mrumsey]

So could you stand really close to an interrogation subject and say: "I target the closest creature that is lying/being deceitful/not telling the whole truth."?

You could even use non-damaging spells (they exist, right?) to keep from making this an ethics debate!

Abstract targeting makes gameplay s***ty.

[gloryblaze]

So could you stand really close to an interrogation subject and say: "I target the closest creature that is lying/being deceitful/not telling the whole truth."?

You could even use non-damaging spells (they exist, right?) to keep from making this an ethics debate!

Abstract targeting makes gameplay s***ty.

I think most people agree that you can't force the spell to do logic. The question at hand is if it is a homing projectile (as in, if you name a specific creature that you know is within 60 feet of you but not where, will it work?)

[Aett_Thorn]

I think most people agree that you can't force the spell to do logic. The question at hand is if it is a homing projectile (as in, if you name a specific creature that you know is within 60 feet of you but not where, will it work?)

Honestly, I think at this point we're at the "it depends on the DM" stage. And that's likely as far as we will ever get.

[mrumsey]

I think most people agree that you can't force the spell to do logic. The question at hand is if it is a homing projectile (as in, if you name a specific creature that you know is within 60 feet of you but not where, will it work?)

Can I target the left most creature I hear in the darkness (I believe that is easily allowed)? That is basic logic (to me). This makes it not a question of scope, but scale.

[mrumsey]

Honestly, I think at this point we're at the "it depends on the DM" stage. And that's likely as far as we will ever get.

I think we started there, but sometimes I get bored and want to talk too.

[Tanarii]

The shortest distance between two points is apparently torturous rules lawyering, lol.


I think that's what I asked a few pages back...
Actually I'm wrong. There's no way it can go around a corner or go through objects, assuming total cover. Because spells are blocked if there's no line of effect, unless they say otherwise.

So apparently it can unerringly seek any target within range even if you don't know where they are. But it can't find them if you don't have line of effect. It even takes a penalty for partial cover (since it's a Dex save). Which raises the question: If the target is behind you, so that the blob must travel around or through your own body, do you provide the partial cover bonus to the target? Normally the answer is obviously not, because you don't get in the way of your own missile. But in this case, who knows?

[Mellack]

Actually I'm wrong. There's no way it can go around a corner or go through objects, assuming total cover. Because spells are blocked if there's no line of effect, unless they say otherwise.

So apparently it can unerringly seek any target within range even if you don't know where they are. But it can't find them if you don't have line of effect. It even takes a penalty for partial cover (since it's a Dex save). Which raises the question: If the target is behind you, so that the blob must travel around or through your own body, do you provide the partial cover bonus to the target? Normally the answer is obviously not, because you don't get in the way of your own missile. But in this case, who knows?

No, but because there is no facing in this edition without using the variant rules (the facing rules suck BTW)

[Tanarii]

No, but because there is no facing in this edition without using the variant rules (the facing rules suck BTW)
So if you're not facing your target, since you have no idea where they are and need not make any attempt to guess, the spell turns you around to correctly face the target?

I take your point, but this is where mechanics start to break down and cannot be reconciled with any sensible in-game visualization of the spell. Either the spell redirects the hurled blob so it goes around you, the hurled blob disappears as soon as it leaves your hand and appears at the target*, the spell magically turns you to face the target before you hurl it, or ... I'm not sure what else we can come up with.

*Actually the disappearing thing isn't too bad a visualization, if we're assuming a 'homing' blob.

[krugaan]

Actually I'm wrong. There's no way it can go around a corner or go through objects, assuming total cover. Because spells are blocked if there's no line of effect, unless they say otherwise.

So apparently it can unerringly seek any target within range even if you don't know where they are. But it can't find them if you don't have line of effect. It even takes a penalty for partial cover (since it's a Dex save). Which raises the question: If the target is behind you, so that the blob must travel around or through your own body, do you provide the partial cover bonus to the target? Normally the answer is obviously not, because you don't get in the way of your own missile. But in this case, who knows?

There's no facing in 5e!

You yourself can never provide cover from a target that you are targeting because ...

Wait, I suppose you can intentionally provide cover by casting the spell backwards.

[Tanarii]

Shouldn't either one suffice?
No. I can look up my name in the phone book and find several other creatures that share it. Are you saying that if I brought us all together, Acid Splash would randomly choose one of us to hit? That if any one of us came into range when it was cast it would hit them? How does the spell associate a name with target creature? Does it pick the image associated with it out of the caster's mind and use that to locate the target?

[Tanarii]

You just need a clear path to the target.
lol you're catching up, aren't you? :smallbiggrin: Yeah, I acknowledged that mistake on my part.

[Aett_Thorn]

I would assume my DM knew I was referring to the Cate that just disappeared.

But how would your character know where Cate was?

[krugaan]

He doesn't. He just picks her and hopes she's within range and not behind cover.

All NPCs are going to start randomly changing their name every round now.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Also Google Soulmaps uses a cloud service with an always up guarantee that's down half of the time.

[krugaan]

Also Google Soulmaps uses a cloud service with an always up guarantee that's down half of the time.

Coffee_Dragon is obviously a sorcerer cause that was super meta!

/kneeslap

...

/crickets

I'll uh ... I'll see myself out now.

[Tanarii]

I would assume my DM knew I was referring to the Cate that just disappeared.


But how would your character know where Cate was?


He doesn't. He just picks her and hopes she's within range and not behind cover.
Okay. At least that's consistent with RAW. You're identifying a target you just saw, you just happen to know the targets name. And RAW Acid Splash just requires you to pick a target, you're picking one you can clearly identify.

I don't like it. But it seems to match RAW. I also think it causes problems in edge cases, for example if the target does something like create an illusionary duplicate as it turns invisible and teleports to a different location still in range. But in cases loke that you can argue about if your character would just choose the duplicate as the target instead.

[borg286]

There's no facing in 5e!

You yourself can never provide cover from a target that you are targeting because ...

Wait, I suppose you can intentionally provide cover by casting the spell backwards.

The image of the BBEG going invisible and in response the party wizard does a u-turn, crosses his fingers, then casts acid splash over his shoulders expecting it land. Love it.