(5e / 1D&D) Adding "a target you can see" rules to everything is dysfunctional

[LudicSavant]

A small rant.

It seems like a lot of the WotC designers just reflexively enter "a target you can see" onto things, without thinking about it.

And this really bugs me.

Why? Well, let's give some examples.

Take Wall of Force. It's obviously intended that you should be able to counter it with Disintegrate. But Disintegrate requires a target you can see within range and Wall of Force is invisible. By RAW, you can't actually target it without some ability that allows you to see invisible things. This is obviously an oversight, which is exactly the point -- these sorts of oversights are commonplace and seem to only be getting moreso as the game progresses.

In fact, we can see new such oversights developing in real time in One D&D. For example, Bard performances used to require "a target who can hear you," but now require "a target you can see." The target no longer needs to hear or see you, oh no. Your audience can be deaf and blind. But you can't inspire people with your music if you, the Bard, are blind. Or encourage that Rogue who is hidden. Or anything.

And I'm willing to give it decent odds that they didn't even do this on purpose -- it's only there because they made something a design reflex that really shouldn't be. If something is sight restricted, there should be a reason for it.

What does and doesn't get the 'target you can see' tag can be shockingly arbitrary. For example, most AoEs don't have it, but some do, and there's usually no narrative aspect that would justify this. Create Bonfire requires a target you can see, but Cloud of Daggers doesn't. Why? I have no damn idea and it may very well be the case that the designers don't, either.

If you ask me, One D&D should be clearing up this kind of jank, not adding to it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I agree. "Line of Sight" should be very much not the default. Line of Effect? Fine. Line of Sight? Please no.

[Oramac]

If you ask me, One D&D should be clearing up this kind of jank, not adding to it.

Completely agree!

I think it'll sorta work itself out at the game table, since most people tend to gloss over details like that, but it is really annoying. I know I definitely consider this when I write my content.

[Lord Raziere]

Heh, DnD once again reinventing the wheel.

We got this janky flaw of dysfunctional design in wording back in Exalted 2e, and it resulted in Creation-Slaying Oblivion Kick, a fan-figured out charm combination that would allow the user to attack the entire world regardless of distance because you can see all of it from the world's tallest mountain, thus an attack to destroy the world. it was so dumb.

just goes to show, you don't learn from history, your doomed to repeat it. this smells of people ignorant or new to ttrpg game design- is their new team just completely inexperienced or something? did they just get random people who've never done this before?

[Amechra]

thus an attack to destroy the world. it was so dumb.

Destroy the world? Please.

You'd use it to hit everything in the world with Pattern Spider Touch. Twice.

[No brains]

I can almost 'see' Wall of Force vs Disintegrate being a legacy joke now.

It's funny that there's an oversight about an invisible object. Possibly around, under, and through it too.

As for Create Bonfire, it makes a little sense that you have to see the spot where you want the fire to be. Visibility isn't an issue for the stuff it burns. Would it be better without needing LoS? Maybe... but I also think it's a useful safety feature on 'advanced property damage: the spell'.

That Cloud of Daggers doesn't need LoS is cool and worth noting.

[Ignimortis]

A small rant.

It seems like a lot of the WotC designers just reflexively enter "a target you can see" onto things, without thinking about it.

And this really bugs me.

*snip*

If you ask me, One D&D should be clearing up this kind of jank, not adding to it.

This sounds suspiciously like WotC went "Ok, let's see what PF2 is doing and why people are praising it. Better codified rules? Alright, let's throw some hard rules onto everything!", without actually thinking what the purpose of those hard rules is (and that PF2 is actually making some things worse with its' rules, sometimes). Making Jump an Action is another one of these PF2-isms, for instance.

[KorvinStarmast]

This sounds suspiciously like WotC went "Ok, let's see what PF2 is doing and why people are praising it. Better codified rules? Alright, let's throw some hard rules onto everything!", without actually thinking what the purpose of those hard rules is (and that PF2 is actually making some things worse with its' rules, sometimes). Making Jump an Action is another one of these PF2-isms, for instance. Yeah, on the bolded part, and the 'Jump is an action' is my top Hard No on the feedback survey.

[PhoenixPhyre]

This sounds suspiciously like WotC went "Ok, let's see what PF2 is doing and why people are praising it. Better codified rules? Alright, let's throw some hard rules onto everything!", without actually thinking what the purpose of those hard rules is (and that PF2 is actually making some things worse with its' rules, sometimes). Making Jump an Action is another one of these PF2-isms, for instance.

Exactly. It smells like Cargo Cult Design. Do what the competition is doing, without actually understanding or doing the hard work of making it fit. A really common issue in all sorts of businesses.

[LudicSavant]

That Cloud of Daggers doesn't need LoS is cool and worth noting.

Most AoEs don't require 'a target you can see,' whether it's Fireball, Cloud of Daggers, Wall of Force, Wall of Fire, Sickening Radiance, Wall of Ice, Burning Hands, Thunderwave, Flame Strike, Dawn, Vitriolic Sphere, Blade Barrier, and so on and so on and so on.

But some just sort of randomly do, like Create Bonfire, Acid Splash, or Dust Devil.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Now imagine if they added "a target you can see" to teleport or plane shift. Or sending. :popcorn:

[greenstone]

Most AoEs don't require 'a target you can see,' whether it's Fireball, Cloud of Daggers, Wall of Force, Wall of Fire, Sickening Radiance, Wall of Ice, Burning Hands, Thunderwave, Flame Strike, Dawn, Vitriolic Sphere, Blade Barrier, and so on and so on and so on.

But some just sort of randomly do, like Create Bonfire, Acid Splash, or Dust Devil.

Do you think it is something to do with cantrip vs levelled spell? Maybe something to limit cantrip spamming?

I'm guessing it is just careless writing/design, but I wonder if there is some thought behind it.

[LudicSavant]

Do you think it is something to do with cantrip vs levelled spell? Maybe something to limit cantrip spamming?

I'm guessing it is just careless writing/design, but I wonder if there is some thought behind it.

It happens to seemingly random non-cantrips too, like Dust Devil or Earthquake. Yep, Earthquake, the thing that affects a 100-foot radius and requires no greater precision than "the ground" won't work if you're blind. Quick! Let's stop Earthquake Man by casting Darkness!!

[Zhorn]

I'd be all for an addition into the general casting rules section on "Sight Requirements"
Establish the meaning of natural language when spell text uses "target you can see"
How to rule when the target is lightly/heavily obscured or invisible
How to rule when the caster is blind
How to rule when the caster is using nonstandard vision (eg: tremor sense, blind sight)

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'd be all for an addition into the general casting rules section on "Sight Requirements"
Establish the meaning of natural language when spell text uses "target you can see"
How to rule when the target is lightly/heavily obscured or invisible
How to rule when the caster is blind
How to rule when the caster is using nonstandard vision (eg: tremor sense, blind sight)

For me, only the last of those is even slightly ambiguous at the current time. And I'm willing to give benefit of the doubt to the caster the majority of the time.

[Cybren]

"a target you can see" is not there for no reason, or because they didn't think about it.

It was a (I would argue failed) attempt to streamline the rules for effects like invisibility by offloading a lot of the utility of being invisible onto how other effects are worded.

[Zhorn]

For me, only the last of those is even slightly ambiguous at the current time. And I'm willing to give benefit of the doubt to the caster the majority of the time.
Yeah, mostTM of them are already answerable, but if there were a section like this to be added, I'd want it to include each of those for completeness. So many rules arguments stem from rule of topics being split up across multiple chapters or even books.

[LudicSavant]

"a target you can see" is not there for no reason, or because they didn't think about it.

It was a (I would argue failed) attempt to streamline the rules for effects like invisibility by offloading a lot of the utility of being invisible onto how other effects are worded.

This hypothesis is insufficient to explain what we're seeing. Create Bonfire, Earthquake, and Dust Devil have a 'target you can see' clause that doesn't even apply to creatures, let alone invisible ones. And I doubt anyone actually specifically went "you know, I really think that Invisibility should protect you from getting inspired by music."

[Kane0]

I'd like to sign this petition

[Samayu]

I fail to see why one couldn't create a bonfire in the dark, in a square that a similarly blind archer can shoot at. If an effect just happens in a square, then the caster should be able to pick a square, even if they can't see it. "Due east, thirty feet out." Of course the DM is free to apply a ruling.

"That square is in space, so there is no earthquake."
"That square is twenty feet off the ground. Your bonfire falls to the floor and goes out."
"That square is on the other side of a wall, and you have no line of effect."

[Tanarii]

Personally I want it to be the default for all magic and features which takes effect at range. Only things which have something which exists in real space and traverses the distance between the creature taking the action and the end point should lack it. Or effects explicitly designed to bypass space, such as divinations (locate, scrying or contact type effect) or some transportations (teleports).

Conversely, many things which don't traverse the distance should be able to penetrate solid barriers, provided you can see it.

[Psyren]

I don't think spells relying on sight is the real problem, so much as Wall of Force not needing to be invisible. It's already one of the strongest spells in the game even if you could just target it (and happen to have its one silver bullet spell prepared), so being completely invisible on top of that isn't necessary (especially when "near-transparent" exists in D&D, see MMM for example.) The goal seems to have been to make it see-through, but it doesn't need to be invisible for that.

For that matter, I dislike the fact that no matter how strong you are, you need that spell to break through it. By all means make it undispellable, but in Pathfinder, Wall of Force wasn't indestructible like it is in D&D. Immensely durable sure - 30 hardness and 20HP/level - but given time, your Barbarian could probably get out of it, to say nothing of a dragon or giant.

[PhoenixPhyre]

For that matter, I dislike the fact that no matter how strong you are, you need that spell to break through it. By all means make it undispellable, but in Pathfinder, Wall of Force wasn't indestructible like it is in D&D. Immensely durable sure - 30 hardness and 20HP/level - but given time, your Barbarian could probably get out of it, to say nothing of a dragon or giant.

This is my bigger issue with it. Especially since disintegrate is only a couple lists.

[J-H]

Yeah, I just had a CR 18 boss get walled in by Wall of Force. The Wild Magic Sorcerer had already hit the area with a Fog Cloud by accident, so nobody could at least see the boss (otherwise they would have Heat Metal'd him to death). He broke out through the staircase, but it took a while.

Not a fan of Forcecage at all for similar reasons.

[stoutstien]

IMO I think line of sight should be a school specific requirements. It makes sense for illusion and transmutation.

[Monster Manuel]

Yeah, mostTM of them are already answerable, but if there were a section like this to be added, I'd want it to include each of those for completeness. So many rules arguments stem from rule of topics being split up across multiple chapters or even books.

Kind of a side discussion, but this is exactly the kind of thing I would like to see in an updated DMG. Let the PHB be more natural-languagey, but the DMG is the place to provide more formal interpretations of what it's supposed to mean.

[Oramac]

How about instead of "a target you can see" we use "a target of which you are aware"?

Certainly it'll need to be narrowed down and applied with care, but as a baseline default option, I think it works much better than sight. It allows for blind sight and tremorsense; it allows for earthquake in darkness; it allows for hearing/smelling/tasting to count instead of sight. Hell, one could argue that it allows for telepathy to make you "aware" of the target.

[Zhorn]

How about instead of "a target you can see" we use "a target of which you are aware"?
I'm more in favor of "you target a creature" / "you target an object" / "you target a point" / "you target an area" without, and have the "you can seeTM" being part of the 'Spellcasting: Targets by Senses' section as I was talking about before.

"that you can see" is general enough that it should be treated as a general rule for casting, only needing to be called out in the spell text if there is a specific difference that it results in.
"a target of which you are aware" isn't a bad idea for wording, but I'd say that too is general enough to belong as a general rule rather than call it out on ever single spell

Target behind total cover? that is not a valid target unless the spell specifies that is valid target.

[Cybren]

This hypothesis is insufficient to explain what we're seeing. Create Bonfire, Earthquake, and Dust Devil have a 'target you can see' clause that doesn't even apply to creatures, let alone invisible ones. And I doubt anyone actually specifically went "you know, I really think that Invisibility should protect you from getting inspired by music."

No, in those cases it's because they're doing the same thing but for the blinded condition.

[Tanarii]

IMO I think line of sight should be a school specific requirements. It makes sense for illusion and transmutation.
That might work. Also Abjuration and Enchantment, and Necromancy should usually require LoS. Maybe with some called out not requiring it that fire a Ray or are Touch, for Necromancy.

Evocation and Conjuration could probably get way with only LoE and not LoS, even if some of them are action at a distance. They'd just need to all be redefined as AOEs targeting a point at a distance specified if you can't see them. (Looking at you Acid Splash.)

Divinations mostly make sense without LoS.

[LudicSavant]

I'd like to sign this petition

Feel free to link it on your survey feedback, if you like.


in those cases it's because they're doing the same thing but for the blinded condition.

This hypothesis doesn't really explain the cases we're seeing. Blindness shouldn't stop you from singing, or stop you from intimidating people.

[Chronos]

Quoth LudicSavant:

It happens to seemingly random non-cantrips too, like Dust Devil or Earthquake. Yep, Earthquake, the thing that affects a 100-foot radius and requires no greater precision than "the ground" won't work if you're blind. Quick! Let's stop Earthquake Man by casting Darkness!!


I think you just misgendered Toph. Fortunately she's not offended at being depicted as male.

Back on topic, if "a target you can see" is the only restriction on targeting, then you can end up with some overpowered wallhacks, if a character can see things they "shouldn't" be able to, via Ghostly Gaze, scrying, or the like.

[Mastikator]

Doesn't PHB "chapter 9: Making an attack" explicitly say you can target locations with spells though?
Just target a location outside the wall of force, the disintegration ray intersects the invisible wall of force and destroys it. AFAIK that's not just common sense or RAI but also RAW


Are the any RAW reasons why a spell that outlines "target a creature you can see" excludes the general rule that you can target creatures, objects and locations (with the follow up that if you can't see them, you choose a location, roll and miss if they're not there).

[Keltest]

Doesn't PHB "chapter 9: Making an attack" explicitly say you can target locations with spells though?
Just target a location outside the wall of force, the disintegration ray intersects the invisible wall of force and destroys it. AFAIK that's not just common sense or RAI but also RAW


Are the any RAW reasons why a spell that outlines "target a creature you can see" excludes the general rule that you can target creatures, objects and locations (with the follow up that if you can't see them, you choose a location, roll and miss if they're not there).

I dont think it does, specifically? Spells use their own targeting rules, even attack-roll spells. Thats how you get interesting situations like using a creature-targeting spell to mimic check a chest.

A wall of force would also provide total cover from a disintegrate spell even if you dont know its there, so you cant technically target things beyond it anyway.

[Mastikator]

I dont think it does, specifically? Spells use their own targeting rules, even attack-roll spells. Thats how you get interesting situations like using a creature-targeting spell to mimic check a chest.

You're right actually, I needed a refresher on chapter 10 which states "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". Meaning you can't magic missile a rock.

They could fix that rule with another paragraph about spells that require creatures or objects you can see can still be used to target a location (using the same advantage/disadvantage rule as weapon attacks, perhaps invisible creatures could get advantage on their saving throw if the spell targets a visible creature).

I hope to see that in the 2024 PHB. It would basically fix the "target you can see" problem IMO. It feels intuitively right that you should be allowed to Disintegrate invisible targets.

[Keltest]

You're right actually, I needed a refresher on chapter 10 which states "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". Meaning you can't magic missile a rock.

They could fix that rule with another paragraph about spells that require creatures or objects you can see can still be used to target a location (using the same advantage/disadvantage rule as weapon attacks, perhaps invisible creatures could get advantage on their saving throw if the spell targets a visible creature).

I hope to see that in the 2024 PHB. It would basically fix the "target you can see" problem IMO. It feels intuitively right that you should be allowed to Disintegrate invisible targets.

I don't see (heh) the problem personally. Why should they reduce the balancing factors on wizard spells even further? Blinding a wizard should be meaningful as blinding a fighter.

[tiornys]

I don't see (heh) the problem personally. Why should they reduce the balancing factors on wizard spells even further? Blinding a wizard should be meaningful as blinding a fighter.
Poor comparison. Should silencing a fighter be as meaningful as silencing a wizard?

Badly written, inconsistent rules re: line of sight vs. line of effect for spells are not a good balancing factor.

[Mastikator]

I'd rather have cleaner and clearer rules. Better to just give martial classes more non-combat stuff and more CC options. The experts playtest UA put rangers in a good place. They can do the same with fighters by giving them maneuvers and superiority dice to the base class (in addition to the other scant few goodies). If they could give the rogue a few more stuff in the 2024 version, the barbarian some better high level stuff I think the game would be much better. The monk? It needs to be a lot better.

Either way weird rules should not be used to balance the classes. The classes should just be balanced. The classes features should make intuitive sense. The rules should not break immersion, if you have to choose between playing the game RAW and playing a game that makes intuitive sense then that is bad game design. I don't mean "realism" either, magic isn't real but if the rules of magic is consistent, balanced and make sense according to the rest of the game then that is correct. Verisimilitude, not realism.

[Slipjig]

IDK, while something like Disintegrate/Wall of Force is clearly a verbiage bug, being blinded should be EXTREMELY debilitating to anyone attempting to strike an opponent in combat with any single-target attack. And even with an AOE attack, the rules should probably include some form of scatter dice to determine where the effect actually lands.

If anything, I think only imposing standard disadvantage is massively understating the handicap imposed by fighting blind, ESPECIALLY at range. IIRC, when blinded in 2e you were completely unable to attack at range unless you had the Blind Fighting weapon proficiency, and even then you did so with a major penalty (-8, maybe?).

[Tanarii]

If anything, I think only imposing standard disadvantage is massively understating the handicap imposed by fighting blind, ESPECIALLY at range.
When making an attack roll in melee or at range when you can't see the target, you have to guess the location you're attacking unless you can pin point their location.

That's particularly debilitating at range, since human hearing should typically only be effective within a range of about 60ft IRL, less if there's any ambient noise (e.g. a fight going on). How that translates into game rules is up to the DM though. They get to set the Perception DC necessary to pinpoint a target, if it's even possible to succeed.

Lots of DMs like to just have "can't see = automatically pinpoint" regardless of distance, background noise, etc. But that's not what the rules for unseen targets actually say.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I miss keywords. While there's something to be said for keeping all the relevant information about an ability in the same place, I think if you do it right that's outweighed by the benefits of simplified entries. How much page-space would be saved just by replacing things like "or half as much damage on a successful one" or "a creature affected by this spell makes another saving throw at the end of each of its turns. On a successful save, the effect ends for it" with [Save Half] and [Save Ends]?" You can write one good, solid set of rules for targeting and then just note if an ability requires [Sight] or [Effect]?

...the older I get, the more I find myself admiring in 4e's design.

[InvisibleBison]

Kind of a side discussion, but this is exactly the kind of thing I would like to see in an updated DMG. Let the PHB be more natural-languagey, but the DMG is the place to provide more formal interpretations of what it's supposed to mean.

I don't think this is a good idea. A player shouldn't have to read the DMG just to know what the rules actually are.

[LudicSavant]

I don't see (heh) the problem personally. Why should they reduce the balancing factors on wizard spells even further? Blinding a wizard should be meaningful as blinding a fighter.

This seems to presume that Wizards are the only ones being affected here, or that they're the ones affected most. But if anything, I'd say other classes are getting affected more. For example the poor Echo Knight can't even manifest any echoes (and thus use any of their subclass features) if blinded.

Wizards (at least, Wizards who have a clue what they're doing) actually tend to be better off blind than most characters, which is why they like Fog Cloud. They can still Fireball you or Wall of Force you or summon monsters or whatever just fine while blind. They aren't going to care that much, from an optimization perspective, that lacking sight turns off Earthquake or Dust Devil or Acid Splash. And the fact that lacking sight turns off counters to Wall of Force (not just Disintegrate, but movement abilities that can escape it) just makes it even harder to counter.

Meanwhile, let's take a look at other classes. Say, Barbarian.

Barbarians have a ton of abilities that require "a target you can see." For example, a Berserker Barbarian cannot try to intimidate people unless they can see them (in fact, Berserkers need the target to see or hear them, and for them to see the target). In fact, "target you can see" is so damn common in the Barbarian writeup that it even made its way into Danger Sense. Apparently if you can't see a trap, it doesn't trigger your spider sense.

In fact, in the Barbarian we can again see an example of how the issue is getting worse over time. For instance, the Zealot Barbarian has an ability to inspire people which doesn't require a target you can see. But more recently, when they gave an inspiration feature to the Beast Barbarian, it does require a target you can see. They also need a target they can see to defend themselves with their tails -- unlike most defensive reactions of that nature.

And what's more, these changes don't really seem to be about balance at all. For example, you used to be able to counterplay a Bard by deafening people they wanted to inspire, which made sense. Now you can't -- now you counterplay them by blinding the Bard. They didn't like, add counterplay where there wasn't any. They replaced counterplay that made sense with counterplay that didn't make sense. Now that silenced bard song keeps on inspiring.

tl;dr
- Wizards aren't the only ones hit here, and likely not the ones hit hardest. They have no shortage of powerful sightless options, to such an extent that many Wizards will purposely plunge the battlefield into fog knowing that they hold the advantage there.
- As others have mentioned, it's a fundamentally bad idea to use jank as a balance tool. Grod's Law applies.

[Psyren]

Barbarian and Monk will be able to pick up Blind Fighting at level 1 in 1DnD though, they'll be fine. And that's assuming they won't get any bonus fighting styles in their new progression. Now that blindsight is being clarified to be a form of sight, it'll provide an easy way for martials to overcome sight restrictions, albeit within a short range.


I miss keywords. While there's something to be said for keeping all the relevant information about an ability in the same place, I think if you do it right that's outweighed by the benefits of simplified entries. How much page-space would be saved just by replacing things like "or half as much damage on a successful one" or "a creature affected by this spell makes another saving throw at the end of each of its turns. On a successful save, the effect ends for it" with [Save Half] and [Save Ends]?" You can write one good, solid set of rules for targeting and then just note if an ability requires [Sight] or [Effect]?

...the older I get, the more I find myself admiring in 4e's design.

I'm good without keywords honestly. I like every spell being fundamentally self-contained.

[LudicSavant]

Barbarian and Monk will be able to pick up Blind Fighting at level 1 in 1DnD though, they'll be fine.

No, they really won't. They don't get that blind-fighting for free, and it only works on things within very short range of you, and it doesn't somehow make it start making sense that a Berserker Barbarian or Long Death Monk can only intimidate people they can see.

Incidentally, this is a restriction that Wizards do not share, they can frighten people without seeing a damn thing.

[Thunderous Mojo]

No, they really won't. They don't get that blind-fighting for free, and it only works on things within very short range of you, and it doesn't somehow make it start making sense that a Berserker Barbarian or Long Death Monk can only intimidate people they can see.

Incidentally, this is a restriction that Wizards do not share, they can frighten people without seeing a damn thing.

Agreed. Axiomatic Riders in an Exception Based rule system is just a silly idea.

Ultimately, the professional Design Team, (employed to produce D&D), needs to go through each ability and deeply consider it.

If the paid Designers do not do that, the task falls to the unpaid Players of the game. I personally expect to get paid for drudgery…not pay for the privilege to perform drudgery.

I would strongly encourage everyone here to express to WotC their expectations that WotC will fix the jank in 5e, not add more Jank to it.

[Psyren]

No, they really won't. They don't get that blind-fighting for free, and it only works on things within very short range of you, and it doesn't somehow make it start making sense that a Berserker Barbarian or Long Death Monk can only intimidate people they can see.

Incidentally, this is a restriction that Wizards do not share, they can frighten people without seeing a damn thing.

1) We won't know what they'll get for free or not until their playtest drops, never mind the actual release.

2) Frightening monsters generally doesn't kill them though. Fireball might, if you can figure out where to aim it while blind, and survive everyone hitting you with advantage.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Frightening monsters generally doesn't kill them though. Fireball might, if you can figure out where to aim it while blind, and survive everyone hitting you with advantage.

Killing Creatures is not the sole definition of defeating an enemy.
More importantly, the Frightened Condition’s restriction on the subject’s movement can easily be an element in an engine of death.

I have seen a Long Death Monk use their Hour of Reaping ability to great effect, by keeping foes within the radius of a Sickening Radiance spell.

[Psyren]

Killing Creatures is not the sole definition of defeating an enemy.
More importantly, the Frightened Condition’s restriction on the subject’s movement can easily be an element in an engine of death.

I have seen a Long Death Monk use their Hour of Reaping ability to great effect, by keeping foes within the radius of a Sickening Radiance spell.

1) I'm aware that you can overcome encounters without killing, but that is the most common resolution method in D&D nonetheless.

2) Bold is what killed them. The frighten effect was tactically sound in combination, but ultimately does nothing on its own (especially since you can't even attack while using it.)

[Thunderous Mojo]

2) Bold is what killed them. The frighten effect was tactically sound in combination, but ultimately does nothing on its own (especially since you can't even attack while using it.)

This is inaccurate, the combination is what makes an “engine of death”.
The two components when combined together yield a result that is greater then what each ability is able to deliver on it’s own.

Synergistic abilities wins battles.
(I doubt we have any disagreement there).

Psyren, you seem to be narrowing the scope of your gaze, to ensure you “win the argument”, which isn’t really germane, in my view. (There is nothing to ‘Win’ here, this is just a conversation ).

The Frightened and Charmed Conditions can exert critical battlefield control. A Sickening Radiance spell with a zone of effect one can’t leave, is clearly an upgrade over a Sickening Radiance spell that one can just saunter out of the zone of effect.

[Keltest]

This is inaccurate, the combination is what makes an “engine of death”.
The two components when combined together yield a result that is greater then what each ability is able to deliver on it’s own.

Synergistic abilities wins battles.
(I doubt we have any disagreement there).

Psyren, you seem to be narrowing the scope of your gaze, to ensure you “win the argument”, which isn’t really germane, in my view.

The Frightened and Charmed Conditions can exert critical battlefield control.

Ive seen some pretty solid uses of the frightened condition to protect party members. I have never seen or heard of the charmed condition being used in combat for its own sake, its always other riders on the condition that specific abilities add.

[Thunderous Mojo]

A Charmed creature cannot attack the target they are besotted with.
I’ve seen a Fey Wanderer/Arcane Archer use Beguiling Arrow, and Summon Fey to “Charm Tank”.

The Fey Wanderer subclass ability, Beguiling Twist, means that having low Saving Throw DCs on the Arcane Archer ability of Beguiling Arrow makes the power still useful.

[Psyren]

Synergistic abilities wins battles.
(I doubt we have any disagreement there).

We agree on this, but you still need a "win condition" in most fights. You can frighten enemies all day long, but unless the goal is to keep them away from a certain point or bypass them while you escape, that needs to be combined with something that kills them - that's all I'm saying. (To say nothing of enemies with ranged capability.) And because of that need, I think blindness might be getting a bit too easily dismissed as a negative condition.


Psyren, you seem to be narrowing the scope of your gaze, to ensure you “win the argument”, which isn’t really germane, in my view. (There is nothing to ‘Win’ here, this is just a conversation ).

I'm expressing my opinion, "victory" on a message board is not a concern.

[Segev]

Honestly, I think most of the time they include "a target you can see," they mean (without realizing they're conflating the two) "a target of which you are aware." Though with some, like create bonfire, I think they just don't know how to word "a location to which you have line of effect."

It should probably be "a location that is not behind full cover."

[Tanarii]

Honestly, I think most of the time they include "a target you can see," they mean (without realizing they're conflating the two) "a target of which you are aware." Though with some, like create bonfire, I think they just don't know how to word "a location to which you have line of effect."

It should probably be "a location that is not behind full cover."

The clear path to the target rule already covers ... uh, cover. It's the 5e LoE rule, it's just not called that, and it also covers AOEs needing a clear path from the point of origin to the target. Both direct and AOE clear paths be overridden by specific text of the spell, like Message (goes around corners) and Fireball or Darkness (spreads around corners). In addition the AOEs rules also address what happens if you choose a point you can't see as the origin and you don't have a clear path to the point of origin, namely it appears on the near side of the thing blocking the clear path.

AoE spells, e.g. Fireball, already have the wording for choosing a place within range you cannot see, "a point you choose within range". All they had to do was use that for Create Bonfire. "You create a bonfire on ground at a point you choose within range." Because it's not an AoE technically, the only issue would be exactly how it behaves if you choose a point you can't see and there wasn't a clear path.

[Segev]

The clear path to the target rule already covers ... uh, cover. It's the 5e LoE rule, it's just not called that, and it also covers AOEs needing a clear path from the point of origin to the target. Both direct and AOE clear paths be overridden by specific text of the spell, like Message (goes around corners) and Fireball or Darkness (spreads around corners). In addition the AOEs rules also address what happens if you choose a point you can't see as the origin and you don't have a clear path to the point of origin, namely it appears on the near side of the thing blocking the clear path.

AoE spells, e.g. Fireball, already have the wording for choosing a place within range you cannot see, "a point you choose within range". All they had to do was use that for Create Bonfire. "You create a bonfire on ground at a point you choose within range." Because it's not an AoE technically, the only issue would be exactly how it behaves if you choose a point you can't see and there wasn't a clear path.

Ah, okay.

Also, isn't create bonfire an AoE because it expressly calls out a cube shape by the size rules used for AoEs?

[Tanarii]

Also, isn't create bonfire an AoE because it expressly calls out a cube shape by the size rules used for AoEs?
Correct, I was wrong, it is an AoE.

[Necrosnoop110]

I agree this is problematic. Found this:


Disintegrate is a mischievous spell. It says you must see its target, then quickly makes an exception for wall of force and the like. https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/829354351256707072

[Witty Username]

Lots of DMs like to just have "can't see = automatically pinpoint" regardless of distance, background noise, etc. But that's not what the rules for unseen targets actually say.

But it is what the hiding rules say. And the invisibility rules say. If you are unseen, your location is known unless you are also hiding. And if you are hiding you can give away your location if you make noise or make an attack roll. That last bit is mostly from the unseen attackers and targets section.

Weird yes, I am personally more offended that a two blind men have no penalties trying to hit eachother though.

I personally solve the first problem with passive hide checks, if a smoke bomb goes off in the combat the rogue vanishes by instinct, the fighter clanks around in brief confusion.
--
We have no idea how Wizards will be affected by this, for all we know all spells will have a line of sight requirement in one D&D.

This is frankly small potatoes for WOTC, I still remember that one star wars rpg that let you trace line of effect through video calls.

[Segev]

Correct, I was wrong, it is an AoE.

I mean, it's not like it isn't confusing. Whether it can target a maximum of 1, 4, or even 5 creatures is a matter that fluctuates by DM, with many assuming "5 foot cube? Obviously only meant to target one creature." You have to look deep enough into the AoE rules to realize that it can hit multiple creatures at once that it seems like an exploit to many.

[Tanarii]

But it is what the hiding rules say. And the invisibility rules say. If you are unseen, your location is known unless you are also hiding.
Nope. They say if you leave hiding to approach a creature, it usually sees you.

Other than that, the DM is free to rule how pinpointing a non-hiding creature you cannot see however they feel is appropriate. And that's especially important if you're talking about if you have to guess where a creature you cannot see is when it's 30ft or more away from you by hearing alone over the sounds of battle.

Some DMs may rule it's not possible. Others that it's a (possibly passive) perception check against a DC they set based on the circumstances, but no action. Others that you have to take the search action against said DC. And those that have decided the rules say that a non-hiding creature is automatically detected, when they don't, that pinpointing is automatic and you don't have to guess.

[Keltest]

Nope. They say if you leave hiding to approach a creature, it usually sees you.

Other than that, the DM is free to rule how pinpointing a non-hiding creature you cannot see however they feel is appropriate. And that's especially important if you're talking about if you have to guess where a creature you cannot see is when it's 30ft or more away from you by hearing alone over the sounds of battle.

Some DMs may rule it's not possible. Others that it's a (possibly passive) perception check against a DC they set based on the circumstances, but no action. Others that you have to take the search action against said DC. And those that have decided the rules say that a non-hiding creature is automatically detected, when they don't, that pinpointing is automatic and you don't have to guess.

A creature is not hidden unless they are both unseen and unheard. If they arent sneaking and don't have some other form of muffling their noise like a silence spell, then they aren't hidden even if they're invisible. Period. This is a deliberate balancing factor for invisibility and stealth.

[Ignimortis]

A creature is not hidden unless they are both unseen and unheard. If they arent sneaking and don't have some other form of muffling their noise like a silence spell, then they aren't hidden even if they're invisible. Period. This is a deliberate balancing factor for invisibility and stealth.

I think the latest playtest disagrees with you on that? Invisible seemed to be Hidden word for word, with an extra clause about ending early or something (don't have the file on hand atm).

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think the latest playtest disagrees with you on that? Invisible seemed to be Hidden word for word, with an extra clause about ending early or something (don't have the file on hand atm).

Yay. Because spells needed even more power. Said... depressingly large numbers of people.

[wizarddog]

Seems to me 5e just has an issue of characters being able to "target a square" as they were allowed in 3.5 and 4e. That is possibly to keep the "theater of mind" aspect of the game and making the grid optional feature rather than a requirement.

[Tanarii]

Seems to me 5e just has an issue of characters being able to "target a square" as they were allowed in 3.5 and 4e. That is possibly to keep the "theater of mind" aspect of the game and making the grid optional feature rather than a requirement.It is part of the standard rule in 5e for unseen targets, at least ones you also can't hear. Except because there is no grid, it's not "a square". It's just "guessing the target's location".

What's not explicit it what it takes to hear a target that isn't hidden. That's up to the DM.

[Xetheral]

A creature is not hidden unless they are both unseen and unheard.

True! That is indeed the 5e definition of hiding.



If they arent sneaking and don't have some other form of muffling their noise like a silence spell, then they aren't hidden even if they're invisible. Period. This is a deliberate balancing factor for invisibility and stealth.

Not quite true--there are other ways to be unheard. In addition to being unheard by virtue of sneaking or muffling their noise (or deafening a potential observer) a character can be unheard (and therefore hidden if they are also unseen) simply by being out of hearing range. Because the rulebooks are silent on hearing range, determining who is in hearing range is entirely up to the DM--some DMs will have hearing range include every creature in an encounter, and some DMs won't, but both are following the rules.

[Keltest]

Not quite true--there are other ways to be unheard. In addition to being unheard by virtue of sneaking or muffling their noise (or deafening a potential observer) a character can be unheard (and therefore hidden if they are also unseen) simply by being out of hearing range. Because the rulebooks are silent on hearing range, determining who is in hearing range is entirely up to the DM--some DMs will have hearing range include every creature in an encounter, and some DMs won't, but both are following the rules.

I did specifically call out some way of muffling yourself besides sneaking. Hearing range is one of them.

[Tanarii]

Not quite true--there are other ways to be unheard. In addition to being unheard by virtue of sneaking or muffling their noise (or deafening a potential observer) a character can be unheard (and therefore hidden if they are also unseen) simply by being out of hearing range. Because the rulebooks are silent on hearing range, determining who is in hearing range is entirely up to the DM--some DMs will have hearing range include every creature in an encounter, and some DMs won't, but both are following the rules.
Environmental noise is another relevant one. In particular, relevant to targeting, is hearing someone you can't see over the sounds of battle. (Or given 5e combat sizes, more lik the sounds of skirmish.)

If a DM flat out told me it's not possible to pinpoint an unseen target even in melee range during an active fight, I'd probably ask for a DC 30 nearly impossible perception check pretty please. Then I'd go find some way to become invisible. :smallamused:

Because IMX making it harder to pinpoint unseen targets with hearing helps players more than it helps their enemies.

Conversely, if a DM told me that even though I'm in a Fog Cloud 500ft away all the enemies archers get is disadvantage, I'd be incredible frustrated. (But not enough to make a scene, because I understand it's a common interpretation.)

[tiornys]

Environmental noise is another relevant one. In particular, relevant to targeting, is hearing someone you can't see over the sounds of battle. (Or given 5e combat sizes, more lik the sounds of skirmish.)

If a DM flat out told me it's not possible to pinpoint an unseen target even in melee range during an active fight, I'd probably ask for a DC 30 nearly impossible perception check pretty please. Then I'd go find some way to become invisible. :smallamused:

Because IMX making it harder to pinpoint unseen targets with hearing helps players more than it helps their enemies.

Conversely, if a DM told me that even though I'm in a Fog Cloud 500ft away all the enemies archers get is disadvantage, I'd be incredible frustrated. (But not enough to make a scene, because I understand it's a common interpretation.)
Technically they don't even get disadvantage. They attack straight up because all of their different disadvantages get canceled by the advantage they get from you not being able to see them. This scenario is one of the massive outliers where the advantage/disadvantage system gives a bad look.

[Keltest]

Technically they don't even get disadvantage. They attack straight up because all of their different disadvantages get canceled by the advantage they get from you not being able to see them. This scenario is one of the massive outliers where the advantage/disadvantage system gives a bad look.

As much as it would be annoying to keep track of and thus against 5e's design ethos, I do think that things like blindness should take away your Dex bonus to AC instead of giving the attacker advantage. Its more than a little silly to me that your inability to react to an attack doesnt affect the actual stat bonus that is literally representing your ability to react to and avoid an attack.

It would also help make dex less of a martial god stat. Plate armor doesnt care if you can see the shot coming, it still stops it.