What happens when you try to target a creature with fire bolt but there is an invisible creature in between?
up vote
17
down vote
favorite
| Y | - | C | - | T |
Y = You
C = Invisible Creature
T = Target
What happens if you cast a firebolt on an enemy but in the line of sight between you and your target there is an invisible creature you know/don't know about?
dnd-5e spells invisibility targeting
edited Nov 15 at 15:32
Rubiksmoose
43.7k6219334
asked Nov 15 at 14:16
Foffos
352112
add a comment |
up vote
17
down vote
favorite
| Y | - | C | - | T |
Y = You
C = Invisible Creature
T = Target
What happens if you cast a firebolt on an enemy but in the line of sight between you and your target there is an invisible creature you know/don't know about?
dnd-5e spells invisibility targeting
edited Nov 15 at 15:32
Rubiksmoose
43.7k6219334
asked Nov 15 at 14:16
Foffos
352112
2
@fabian we don't use code blocks for anything except code here, not even to make formatting look nicer. See this Meta for the reasons behind it.
– Rubiksmoose
Nov 15 at 14:54
add a comment |
up vote
17
down vote
favorite
up vote
17
down vote
favorite
| Y | - | C | - | T |
Y = You
C = Invisible Creature
T = Target
What happens if you cast a firebolt on an enemy but in the line of sight between you and your target there is an invisible creature you know/don't know about?
dnd-5e spells invisibility targeting
edited Nov 15 at 15:32
Rubiksmoose
43.7k6219334
asked Nov 15 at 14:16
Foffos
352112
| Y | - | C | - | T |
Y = You
C = Invisible Creature
T = Target
What happens if you cast a firebolt on an enemy but in the line of sight between you and your target there is an invisible creature you know/don't know about?
dnd-5e spells invisibility targeting
dnd-5e spells invisibility targeting
edited Nov 15 at 15:32
Rubiksmoose
43.7k6219334
asked Nov 15 at 14:16
Foffos
352112
edited Nov 15 at 15:32
Rubiksmoose
43.7k6219334
asked Nov 15 at 14:16
Foffos
352112
edited Nov 15 at 15:32
Rubiksmoose
43.7k6219334
edited Nov 15 at 15:32
Rubiksmoose
43.7k6219334
edited Nov 15 at 15:32
Rubiksmoose
43.7k6219334
43.7k6219334
asked Nov 15 at 14:16
Foffos
352112
asked Nov 15 at 14:16
Foffos
352112
asked Nov 15 at 14:16
Foffos
352112
352112
2
@fabian we don't use code blocks for anything except code here, not even to make formatting look nicer. See this Meta for the reasons behind it.
– Rubiksmoose
Nov 15 at 14:54
add a comment |
2
@fabian we don't use code blocks for anything except code here, not even to make formatting look nicer. See this Meta for the reasons behind it.
– Rubiksmoose
Nov 15 at 14:54
2
2
@fabian we don't use code blocks for anything except code here, not even to make formatting look nicer. See this Meta for the reasons behind it.
– Rubiksmoose
Nov 15 at 14:54
@fabian we don't use code blocks for anything except code here, not even to make formatting look nicer. See this Meta for the reasons behind it.
– Rubiksmoose
Nov 15 at 14:54
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
17
down vote
Invisibility doesn't affect the cover rules (and neither does (not) knowing the creature is there)
Anything that is an obstacle can provide cover for a creature. All that matters for the sake of the rules is that that thing can physically interrupt the path of whatever is trying to cross through it. A creature, invisible or not, can provide cover against spells (which require an uninterrupted line from the source to the target).
Normally, a creature counts as half cover:
A target with half cover has a +2 bonus to AC and Dexterity saving
throws. A target has half cover if an obstacle blocks at least half of
its body. The obstacle might be [...] a creature, whether that
creature is an enemy or a friend.
If the creature is large enough a DM might rule that they provide Three-Quarters cover or even Total cover, but the default for a creature is half cover.
Let's assume that the invisible creature gives half cover in your example. That means that if you cast fire bolt with an invisible creature between you, the target creature (not the invisible one) will get a +2 bonus to its AC, making it that much harder for your spell to hit it.
Unless the creature is providing full cover to the intended target (see next section) nothing about spell targeting or line of sight is changed.
The fact that you do or do not know about the creature has no bearing on the matter. Your DM will know and will adjust the results accordingly.
By the default rules, the creature providing cover does not get hit in any case.
Special case: full cover
If your DM rules that the creature provides full cover against the target, then you will not be able to cast your spell. To target something with a spell you must have a clear path:
To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover.
So, in the rare case that the creature in your example is providing full cover to the intended target (meaning it is covering them entirely), your fire bolt will simply fail to cast.
If your DM is using the optional rule for invalid spell target from Xanathar's Guide to Everything, they may rule that attempting to cast this spell would still burn the spell slot.
If you cast a spell on someone or something that can’t be affected by
the spell, nothing happens to that target, but if you used a spell
slot to cast the spell, the slot is still expended.
Otherwise, the rules are unclear if it would or if you simply would be unable to cast it.
Optional rule: hitting cover
There is an optional rule that your table can use that simulates the chance to hit the covering creature.
If a creature is providing cover for the missed creature and the attack roll exceeds the AC of the covering creature, the covering creature is hit.
answered Nov 15 at 15:15
Rubiksmoose
43.7k6219334
3
Doesn't xanathar have a rule that says something about not having a valid target causes the spell to cast but nothing happens or would this not apply
– Jihelu
Nov 15 at 16:33
1
@Jihelu good suggestion! I added a bit about that.
– Rubiksmoose
Nov 15 at 16:41
1
Invalid spell target or not using the hitting cover rule sure makes mass invisibility of a crowd of screening minions an interesting wrinkle for magic users in a battle setting. If both were used together it would be a no brainer for a big baddie with the spell power and the man power.
– Myles
Nov 15 at 22:16
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
According to the cover rules, the target can have cover for being behind a creature. The DM decides how much cover depending on the size of the creatures and maybe other factors. Then you can use the optional rule for hitting cover to decide if you hit cover (from the DMG on page 272):
If a creature is providing cover for the missed creature and the attack roll exceeds the AC of the covering creature, the covering creature is hit.
Without the optional rule, there's no provision for hitting the covering creature, though it still provides cover.
There's a similar answer here: When creatures provide cover against attacks, can they be hit?
answered Nov 15 at 14:29
bvstuart
58636
New contributor
bvstuart is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
4
Might be worth mentioning that the "Hitting Cover" optional rule is in the DMG.
– Slagmoth
Nov 15 at 14:38
So, using this base, if i know there is a creature inside a darkness spell, a melee attack have to guess the location, but what about a ranged attack made by trying to cast for example your firebolt trought the darkness, covering not a single space but a line? Is this right or i have to guess the location for ranged attacks for a single space too?
– Foffos
Nov 15 at 14:44
2
@Foffos If you don't use this variant rule, it's not going to be helpful in determining your answer. If you do use it (or don't!), that'd be good to add to your question.
– NautArch
Nov 15 at 14:49
1
This all looks correct, but feels wrong. This theoretically makes it much easier to hit an invisible creature.
– goodguy5
Nov 15 at 15:16
1
@goodguy5 You still need to beat their AC, while not beating the AC of the covered creature.
– bvstuart
Nov 15 at 15:54
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
17
down vote
Invisibility doesn't affect the cover rules (and neither does (not) knowing the creature is there)
Anything that is an obstacle can provide cover for a creature. All that matters for the sake of the rules is that that thing can physically interrupt the path of whatever is trying to cross through it. A creature, invisible or not, can provide cover against spells (which require an uninterrupted line from the source to the target).
Normally, a creature counts as half cover:
A target with half cover has a +2 bonus to AC and Dexterity saving
throws. A target has half cover if an obstacle blocks at least half of
its body. The obstacle might be [...] a creature, whether that
creature is an enemy or a friend.
If the creature is large enough a DM might rule that they provide Three-Quarters cover or even Total cover, but the default for a creature is half cover.
Let's assume that the invisible creature gives half cover in your example. That means that if you cast fire bolt with an invisible creature between you, the target creature (not the invisible one) will get a +2 bonus to its AC, making it that much harder for your spell to hit it.
Unless the creature is providing full cover to the intended target (see next section) nothing about spell targeting or line of sight is changed.
The fact that you do or do not know about the creature has no bearing on the matter. Your DM will know and will adjust the results accordingly.
By the default rules, the creature providing cover does not get hit in any case.
Special case: full cover
If your DM rules that the creature provides full cover against the target, then you will not be able to cast your spell. To target something with a spell you must have a clear path:
To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover.
So, in the rare case that the creature in your example is providing full cover to the intended target (meaning it is covering them entirely), your fire bolt will simply fail to cast.
If your DM is using the optional rule for invalid spell target from Xanathar's Guide to Everything, they may rule that attempting to cast this spell would still burn the spell slot.
If you cast a spell on someone or something that can’t be affected by
the spell, nothing happens to that target, but if you used a spell
slot to cast the spell, the slot is still expended.
Otherwise, the rules are unclear if it would or if you simply would be unable to cast it.
Optional rule: hitting cover
There is an optional rule that your table can use that simulates the chance to hit the covering creature.
If a creature is providing cover for the missed creature and the attack roll exceeds the AC of the covering creature, the covering creature is hit.
answered Nov 15 at 15:15
Rubiksmoose
43.7k6219334
3
Doesn't xanathar have a rule that says something about not having a valid target causes the spell to cast but nothing happens or would this not apply
– Jihelu
Nov 15 at 16:33
1
@Jihelu good suggestion! I added a bit about that.
– Rubiksmoose
Nov 15 at 16:41
1
Invalid spell target or not using the hitting cover rule sure makes mass invisibility of a crowd of screening minions an interesting wrinkle for magic users in a battle setting. If both were used together it would be a no brainer for a big baddie with the spell power and the man power.
– Myles
Nov 15 at 22:16
add a comment |
up vote
17
down vote
Invisibility doesn't affect the cover rules (and neither does (not) knowing the creature is there)
Anything that is an obstacle can provide cover for a creature. All that matters for the sake of the rules is that that thing can physically interrupt the path of whatever is trying to cross through it. A creature, invisible or not, can provide cover against spells (which require an uninterrupted line from the source to the target).
Normally, a creature counts as half cover:
A target with half cover has a +2 bonus to AC and Dexterity saving
throws. A target has half cover if an obstacle blocks at least half of
its body. The obstacle might be [...] a creature, whether that
creature is an enemy or a friend.
If the creature is large enough a DM might rule that they provide Three-Quarters cover or even Total cover, but the default for a creature is half cover.
Let's assume that the invisible creature gives half cover in your example. That means that if you cast fire bolt with an invisible creature between you, the target creature (not the invisible one) will get a +2 bonus to its AC, making it that much harder for your spell to hit it.
Unless the creature is providing full cover to the intended target (see next section) nothing about spell targeting or line of sight is changed.
The fact that you do or do not know about the creature has no bearing on the matter. Your DM will know and will adjust the results accordingly.
By the default rules, the creature providing cover does not get hit in any case.
Special case: full cover
If your DM rules that the creature provides full cover against the target, then you will not be able to cast your spell. To target something with a spell you must have a clear path:
To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover.
So, in the rare case that the creature in your example is providing full cover to the intended target (meaning it is covering them entirely), your fire bolt will simply fail to cast.
If your DM is using the optional rule for invalid spell target from Xanathar's Guide to Everything, they may rule that attempting to cast this spell would still burn the spell slot.
If you cast a spell on someone or something that can’t be affected by
the spell, nothing happens to that target, but if you used a spell
slot to cast the spell, the slot is still expended.
Otherwise, the rules are unclear if it would or if you simply would be unable to cast it.
Optional rule: hitting cover
There is an optional rule that your table can use that simulates the chance to hit the covering creature.
If a creature is providing cover for the missed creature and the attack roll exceeds the AC of the covering creature, the covering creature is hit.
answered Nov 15 at 15:15
Rubiksmoose
43.7k6219334
3
Doesn't xanathar have a rule that says something about not having a valid target causes the spell to cast but nothing happens or would this not apply
– Jihelu
Nov 15 at 16:33
1
@Jihelu good suggestion! I added a bit about that.
– Rubiksmoose
Nov 15 at 16:41
1
Invalid spell target or not using the hitting cover rule sure makes mass invisibility of a crowd of screening minions an interesting wrinkle for magic users in a battle setting. If both were used together it would be a no brainer for a big baddie with the spell power and the man power.
– Myles
Nov 15 at 22:16
add a comment |
up vote
17
down vote
up vote
17
down vote
Invisibility doesn't affect the cover rules (and neither does (not) knowing the creature is there)
Anything that is an obstacle can provide cover for a creature. All that matters for the sake of the rules is that that thing can physically interrupt the path of whatever is trying to cross through it. A creature, invisible or not, can provide cover against spells (which require an uninterrupted line from the source to the target).
Normally, a creature counts as half cover:
A target with half cover has a +2 bonus to AC and Dexterity saving
throws. A target has half cover if an obstacle blocks at least half of
its body. The obstacle might be [...] a creature, whether that
creature is an enemy or a friend.
If the creature is large enough a DM might rule that they provide Three-Quarters cover or even Total cover, but the default for a creature is half cover.
Let's assume that the invisible creature gives half cover in your example. That means that if you cast fire bolt with an invisible creature between you, the target creature (not the invisible one) will get a +2 bonus to its AC, making it that much harder for your spell to hit it.
Unless the creature is providing full cover to the intended target (see next section) nothing about spell targeting or line of sight is changed.
The fact that you do or do not know about the creature has no bearing on the matter. Your DM will know and will adjust the results accordingly.
By the default rules, the creature providing cover does not get hit in any case.
Special case: full cover
If your DM rules that the creature provides full cover against the target, then you will not be able to cast your spell. To target something with a spell you must have a clear path:
To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover.
So, in the rare case that the creature in your example is providing full cover to the intended target (meaning it is covering them entirely), your fire bolt will simply fail to cast.
If your DM is using the optional rule for invalid spell target from Xanathar's Guide to Everything, they may rule that attempting to cast this spell would still burn the spell slot.
If you cast a spell on someone or something that can’t be affected by
the spell, nothing happens to that target, but if you used a spell
slot to cast the spell, the slot is still expended.
Otherwise, the rules are unclear if it would or if you simply would be unable to cast it.
Optional rule: hitting cover
There is an optional rule that your table can use that simulates the chance to hit the covering creature.
If a creature is providing cover for the missed creature and the attack roll exceeds the AC of the covering creature, the covering creature is hit.
answered Nov 15 at 15:15
Rubiksmoose
43.7k6219334
Invisibility doesn't affect the cover rules (and neither does (not) knowing the creature is there)
Anything that is an obstacle can provide cover for a creature. All that matters for the sake of the rules is that that thing can physically interrupt the path of whatever is trying to cross through it. A creature, invisible or not, can provide cover against spells (which require an uninterrupted line from the source to the target).
Normally, a creature counts as half cover:
A target with half cover has a +2 bonus to AC and Dexterity saving
throws. A target has half cover if an obstacle blocks at least half of
its body. The obstacle might be [...] a creature, whether that
creature is an enemy or a friend.
If the creature is large enough a DM might rule that they provide Three-Quarters cover or even Total cover, but the default for a creature is half cover.
Let's assume that the invisible creature gives half cover in your example. That means that if you cast fire bolt with an invisible creature between you, the target creature (not the invisible one) will get a +2 bonus to its AC, making it that much harder for your spell to hit it.
Unless the creature is providing full cover to the intended target (see next section) nothing about spell targeting or line of sight is changed.
The fact that you do or do not know about the creature has no bearing on the matter. Your DM will know and will adjust the results accordingly.
By the default rules, the creature providing cover does not get hit in any case.
Special case: full cover
If your DM rules that the creature provides full cover against the target, then you will not be able to cast your spell. To target something with a spell you must have a clear path:
To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover.
So, in the rare case that the creature in your example is providing full cover to the intended target (meaning it is covering them entirely), your fire bolt will simply fail to cast.
If your DM is using the optional rule for invalid spell target from Xanathar's Guide to Everything, they may rule that attempting to cast this spell would still burn the spell slot.
If you cast a spell on someone or something that can’t be affected by
the spell, nothing happens to that target, but if you used a spell
slot to cast the spell, the slot is still expended.
Otherwise, the rules are unclear if it would or if you simply would be unable to cast it.
Optional rule: hitting cover
There is an optional rule that your table can use that simulates the chance to hit the covering creature.
If a creature is providing cover for the missed creature and the attack roll exceeds the AC of the covering creature, the covering creature is hit.
answered Nov 15 at 15:15
Rubiksmoose
43.7k6219334
edited Nov 15 at 17:49
answered Nov 15 at 15:15
Rubiksmoose
43.7k6219334
answered Nov 15 at 15:15
Rubiksmoose
43.7k6219334
answered Nov 15 at 15:15
Rubiksmoose
43.7k6219334
43.7k6219334
3
Doesn't xanathar have a rule that says something about not having a valid target causes the spell to cast but nothing happens or would this not apply
– Jihelu
Nov 15 at 16:33
1
@Jihelu good suggestion! I added a bit about that.
– Rubiksmoose
Nov 15 at 16:41
1
Invalid spell target or not using the hitting cover rule sure makes mass invisibility of a crowd of screening minions an interesting wrinkle for magic users in a battle setting. If both were used together it would be a no brainer for a big baddie with the spell power and the man power.
– Myles
Nov 15 at 22:16
add a comment |
3
Doesn't xanathar have a rule that says something about not having a valid target causes the spell to cast but nothing happens or would this not apply
– Jihelu
Nov 15 at 16:33
1
@Jihelu good suggestion! I added a bit about that.
– Rubiksmoose
Nov 15 at 16:41
1
Invalid spell target or not using the hitting cover rule sure makes mass invisibility of a crowd of screening minions an interesting wrinkle for magic users in a battle setting. If both were used together it would be a no brainer for a big baddie with the spell power and the man power.
– Myles
Nov 15 at 22:16
3
3
Doesn't xanathar have a rule that says something about not having a valid target causes the spell to cast but nothing happens or would this not apply
– Jihelu
Nov 15 at 16:33
Doesn't xanathar have a rule that says something about not having a valid target causes the spell to cast but nothing happens or would this not apply
– Jihelu
Nov 15 at 16:33
1
1
@Jihelu good suggestion! I added a bit about that.
– Rubiksmoose
Nov 15 at 16:41
@Jihelu good suggestion! I added a bit about that.
– Rubiksmoose
Nov 15 at 16:41
1
1
Invalid spell target or not using the hitting cover rule sure makes mass invisibility of a crowd of screening minions an interesting wrinkle for magic users in a battle setting. If both were used together it would be a no brainer for a big baddie with the spell power and the man power.
– Myles
Nov 15 at 22:16
Invalid spell target or not using the hitting cover rule sure makes mass invisibility of a crowd of screening minions an interesting wrinkle for magic users in a battle setting. If both were used together it would be a no brainer for a big baddie with the spell power and the man power.
– Myles
Nov 15 at 22:16
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
According to the cover rules, the target can have cover for being behind a creature. The DM decides how much cover depending on the size of the creatures and maybe other factors. Then you can use the optional rule for hitting cover to decide if you hit cover (from the DMG on page 272):
If a creature is providing cover for the missed creature and the attack roll exceeds the AC of the covering creature, the covering creature is hit.
Without the optional rule, there's no provision for hitting the covering creature, though it still provides cover.
There's a similar answer here: When creatures provide cover against attacks, can they be hit?
answered Nov 15 at 14:29
bvstuart
58636
New contributor
bvstuart is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
4
Might be worth mentioning that the "Hitting Cover" optional rule is in the DMG.
– Slagmoth
Nov 15 at 14:38
So, using this base, if i know there is a creature inside a darkness spell, a melee attack have to guess the location, but what about a ranged attack made by trying to cast for example your firebolt trought the darkness, covering not a single space but a line? Is this right or i have to guess the location for ranged attacks for a single space too?
– Foffos
Nov 15 at 14:44
2
@Foffos If you don't use this variant rule, it's not going to be helpful in determining your answer. If you do use it (or don't!), that'd be good to add to your question.
– NautArch
Nov 15 at 14:49
1
This all looks correct, but feels wrong. This theoretically makes it much easier to hit an invisible creature.
– goodguy5
Nov 15 at 15:16
1
@goodguy5 You still need to beat their AC, while not beating the AC of the covered creature.
– bvstuart
Nov 15 at 15:54
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
According to the cover rules, the target can have cover for being behind a creature. The DM decides how much cover depending on the size of the creatures and maybe other factors. Then you can use the optional rule for hitting cover to decide if you hit cover (from the DMG on page 272):
If a creature is providing cover for the missed creature and the attack roll exceeds the AC of the covering creature, the covering creature is hit.
Without the optional rule, there's no provision for hitting the covering creature, though it still provides cover.
There's a similar answer here: When creatures provide cover against attacks, can they be hit?
answered Nov 15 at 14:29
bvstuart
58636
New contributor
bvstuart is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
4
Might be worth mentioning that the "Hitting Cover" optional rule is in the DMG.
– Slagmoth
Nov 15 at 14:38
So, using this base, if i know there is a creature inside a darkness spell, a melee attack have to guess the location, but what about a ranged attack made by trying to cast for example your firebolt trought the darkness, covering not a single space but a line? Is this right or i have to guess the location for ranged attacks for a single space too?
– Foffos
Nov 15 at 14:44
2
@Foffos If you don't use this variant rule, it's not going to be helpful in determining your answer. If you do use it (or don't!), that'd be good to add to your question.
– NautArch
Nov 15 at 14:49
1
This all looks correct, but feels wrong. This theoretically makes it much easier to hit an invisible creature.
– goodguy5
Nov 15 at 15:16
1
@goodguy5 You still need to beat their AC, while not beating the AC of the covered creature.
– bvstuart
Nov 15 at 15:54
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
up vote
6
down vote
According to the cover rules, the target can have cover for being behind a creature. The DM decides how much cover depending on the size of the creatures and maybe other factors. Then you can use the optional rule for hitting cover to decide if you hit cover (from the DMG on page 272):
If a creature is providing cover for the missed creature and the attack roll exceeds the AC of the covering creature, the covering creature is hit.
Without the optional rule, there's no provision for hitting the covering creature, though it still provides cover.
There's a similar answer here: When creatures provide cover against attacks, can they be hit?
answered Nov 15 at 14:29
bvstuart
58636
New contributor
bvstuart is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
According to the cover rules, the target can have cover for being behind a creature. The DM decides how much cover depending on the size of the creatures and maybe other factors. Then you can use the optional rule for hitting cover to decide if you hit cover (from the DMG on page 272):
If a creature is providing cover for the missed creature and the attack roll exceeds the AC of the covering creature, the covering creature is hit.
Without the optional rule, there's no provision for hitting the covering creature, though it still provides cover.
There's a similar answer here: When creatures provide cover against attacks, can they be hit?
answered Nov 15 at 14:29
bvstuart
58636
New contributor
bvstuart is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited Nov 15 at 14:57
answered Nov 15 at 14:29
bvstuart
58636
New contributor
bvstuart is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered Nov 15 at 14:29
bvstuart
58636
answered Nov 15 at 14:29
bvstuart
58636
58636
New contributor
bvstuart is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
bvstuart is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
bvstuart is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
4
Might be worth mentioning that the "Hitting Cover" optional rule is in the DMG.
– Slagmoth
Nov 15 at 14:38
So, using this base, if i know there is a creature inside a darkness spell, a melee attack have to guess the location, but what about a ranged attack made by trying to cast for example your firebolt trought the darkness, covering not a single space but a line? Is this right or i have to guess the location for ranged attacks for a single space too?
– Foffos
Nov 15 at 14:44
2
@Foffos If you don't use this variant rule, it's not going to be helpful in determining your answer. If you do use it (or don't!), that'd be good to add to your question.
– NautArch
Nov 15 at 14:49
1
This all looks correct, but feels wrong. This theoretically makes it much easier to hit an invisible creature.
– goodguy5
Nov 15 at 15:16
1
@goodguy5 You still need to beat their AC, while not beating the AC of the covered creature.
– bvstuart
Nov 15 at 15:54
add a comment |
4
Might be worth mentioning that the "Hitting Cover" optional rule is in the DMG.
– Slagmoth
Nov 15 at 14:38
So, using this base, if i know there is a creature inside a darkness spell, a melee attack have to guess the location, but what about a ranged attack made by trying to cast for example your firebolt trought the darkness, covering not a single space but a line? Is this right or i have to guess the location for ranged attacks for a single space too?
– Foffos
Nov 15 at 14:44
2
@Foffos If you don't use this variant rule, it's not going to be helpful in determining your answer. If you do use it (or don't!), that'd be good to add to your question.
– NautArch
Nov 15 at 14:49
1
This all looks correct, but feels wrong. This theoretically makes it much easier to hit an invisible creature.
– goodguy5
Nov 15 at 15:16
1
@goodguy5 You still need to beat their AC, while not beating the AC of the covered creature.
– bvstuart
Nov 15 at 15:54
4
4
Might be worth mentioning that the "Hitting Cover" optional rule is in the DMG.
– Slagmoth
Nov 15 at 14:38
Might be worth mentioning that the "Hitting Cover" optional rule is in the DMG.
– Slagmoth
Nov 15 at 14:38
So, using this base, if i know there is a creature inside a darkness spell, a melee attack have to guess the location, but what about a ranged attack made by trying to cast for example your firebolt trought the darkness, covering not a single space but a line? Is this right or i have to guess the location for ranged attacks for a single space too?
– Foffos
Nov 15 at 14:44
So, using this base, if i know there is a creature inside a darkness spell, a melee attack have to guess the location, but what about a ranged attack made by trying to cast for example your firebolt trought the darkness, covering not a single space but a line? Is this right or i have to guess the location for ranged attacks for a single space too?
– Foffos
Nov 15 at 14:44
2
2
@Foffos If you don't use this variant rule, it's not going to be helpful in determining your answer. If you do use it (or don't!), that'd be good to add to your question.
– NautArch
Nov 15 at 14:49
@Foffos If you don't use this variant rule, it's not going to be helpful in determining your answer. If you do use it (or don't!), that'd be good to add to your question.
– NautArch
Nov 15 at 14:49
1
1
This all looks correct, but feels wrong. This theoretically makes it much easier to hit an invisible creature.
– goodguy5
Nov 15 at 15:16
This all looks correct, but feels wrong. This theoretically makes it much easier to hit an invisible creature.
– goodguy5
Nov 15 at 15:16
1
1
@goodguy5 You still need to beat their AC, while not beating the AC of the covered creature.
– bvstuart
Nov 15 at 15:54
@goodguy5 You still need to beat their AC, while not beating the AC of the covered creature.
– bvstuart
Nov 15 at 15:54
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f135615%2fwhat-happens-when-you-try-to-target-a-creature-with-fire-bolt-but-there-is-an-in%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
@fabian we don't use code blocks for anything except code here, not even to make formatting look nicer. See this Meta for the reasons behind it.
– Rubiksmoose
Nov 15 at 14:54