365
This definetly seem very intentional… (ttrpg.network)
submitted 10 months ago by to c/rpgmemes@ttrpg.network
117 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 18 points 10 months ago* (3 children)

I've never liked arbitrary spell targeting restrictions. I say if you want to fire blindly around cover or into a fog cloud you should be able to. It doesn't come up very often and because it's easy for players to understand that they'll have a very high chance of missing and losing the spell slot.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [+] 12 points 10 months ago (2 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (1 child)

    In this case, it's a fucking wall. Just ignore the saving throw and roll for damage. It's not going to dodge your attack or anything like that.

    For blind firing, yeah. You need to do something else. Maybe roll to see if/what they hit, then the target makes the saving throw if it makes sense.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 10 months ago

    I think spells that target the spirit of a target shouldn't be able to be fired blind - that's what i would let it depend on. A cold ray doesn't need a visible target, but everything mind affecting that is not AoE will need it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 3 points 10 months ago

    I actually think it’s a fair restriction for spells that require sight. It imposes a somewhat interesting limit on casters, especially since a lot of spells still do something on a miss.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent