# Magic Missile while blinded



## cavalier973 (Oct 2, 2010)

Okay, I ran into this the other day while playing one of the Red Box encounters with my kids.  The goblin hex hurler through a blinding curse (I can't remember the exact name of the power) at the party's wizard, which lasts until the goblin's next turn.  The wizard, on his turn, threw a magic missile at the goblin hexer.  Since MM is an "always hits" spell, I ruled that the hexer was hit, even though the wizard was blind while casting it.  But is there a rule that addresses this situation?


----------



## OnlineDM (Oct 2, 2010)

The blinded condition means that targets have total concealment against the attack (normally a -5 to the attack roll).  For an auto-hit power, that doesn't matter - the Magic Missile hits.

From a flavor perspective, remember that blinded doesn't necessarily mean you don't know where the enemy is.  You can't see them, but you can still hear them.  If they move away stealthily (and you do have -10 to Perception checks while blinded, so sneaking away is pretty easy) then you could become unaware of them.  

I would rule that if a monster blinds you and then sneaks someplace else without you hearing them (their Stealth check versus your Perception check with the -10 blinded penalty) then you couldn't hit them with a Magic Missile because you don't know where they are.  But if the bad guy hasn't moved, or they've moved while making so much noise that the blinded character still knows where they are (poor Stealth roll or awesome Perception roll) then the Magic Missile still works.

This is how things work in the rules, too - see page 221 of the Rules Compendium for the details on Targeting What You Can't See.  Technically the character can still pick a square and shoot at it in the hopes that the bad guy was there, but feel free to rule that as you see fit as the DM (this is rather silly if the bad guy token is still on the table so that other characters can see it - though you could rule that the blind character's allies can yell instructions about where to aim to hit the bad guy).


----------



## cavalier973 (Oct 2, 2010)

That makes sense.  Or, perhaps the Magic Missile spell only requires the caster to "visualize" his target, and it hits if the target is in range.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Oct 2, 2010)

I dunno, poking through the Compendium nothing defininative jumps out but I think that total concealment or invisibility should prevent use of magic missile.


----------



## the Jester (Oct 2, 2010)

Hmmm... I'd probably allow a Perception check to allow it.


----------



## Minifig (Oct 2, 2010)

It's an At Will power, and a Standard action, that being said, I'd assume that that means you have to see your target to cast it.

I agree with the assessment that you have to do a perception check with the blind mechanic attached.. which is a -10 penalty.

Why?

Because you have to take a standard action to see the creature.

If you don't see the creature to attack it .. how does the magic missile know where to fly to hit?

Looking around is a basic action, but actually DOING something while looking around requires an action.. 

Casting, IS an action.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Oct 2, 2010)

the Jester said:


> Hmmm... I'd probably allow a Perception check to allow it.



That could be fun. I am reminded of the movie "El Dorado" 

So if the mage fails his perception who does he target


----------



## Minifig (Oct 2, 2010)

ardoughter said:


> So if the mage fails his perception who does he target





It just counts as a standard miss as far as I'm aware..


----------



## I'm A Banana (Oct 2, 2010)

> So if the mage fails his perception who does he target




The darkness.

Duh.

(Put me in the "you can still know what square your enemy is in, unless they're also using stealth" camp...though now I've gotta look into picking up things that inflict blindness for my gnome assassin...hehehehe)


----------



## the Jester (Oct 2, 2010)

Minifig said:


> It just counts as a standard miss as far as I'm aware..




Clearly, I am a bit more rat-bastardy than this...

I would probably allow a chance of hitting the wrong target if it was adjacent to the target and the blind wizard rolled a 1 on his Perception check.


----------



## Minifig (Oct 2, 2010)

I need to chuck this up in here... and sorry in advance.


----------



## fba827 (Oct 3, 2010)

i believe you need line of effect, not line of sight, for most powers... correct?


----------



## Minifig (Oct 3, 2010)

fba827 said:


> i believe you need line of effect, not line of sight, for most powers... correct?




Magic Missile: 



> 'This power counts as ranged basic attack.'





Ranged Sight says:



> A ranged power that has a range of "Sight" that can be used any target within line of sight. You still need line of effect to the target.



Line of Sight says:



> Two creatures can see each other if they have line of sight to each  other. To determine line of sight, draw an imaginary line between your  space and the target's space. If any such line is clear (not blocked),  then you have line of sight to the creature (and it has line of sight to  you). The line is clear if it doesn't intersect or even touch squares  that block line of sight. If you can't see the target (for instance, if  you're blind or the target is invisible), you can't have line of sight  to it even if you could draw an unblocked line between your space and  the target's.



Line of Effect says:



> Line of effect tells you whether an effect (such as an explosion) can  reach a creature. Line of effect is just like line of sight, except line  of effect ignores restrictions on visual ability. For instance, a  fireball's explosion doesn't care if a creature is invisible or hiding  in darkness.



So reread the Line of Sight part.

It says: *If you can't see the target (for instance, if  you're blind or the target is invisible). * you can't have line of sight  to it even if you could draw an unblocked line between your space and  the target's.

Without Line of Sight, you can't have Line of Effect, therefore you can't cast Magic Missile blinded without the perception check.

QED.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Oct 3, 2010)

But its line of effect isn't blocked at all, even when you're blinded. You can hurl a fireball in a room full of people you can't see and still hit 'em. You can hurl MM's in a room full of people you can't see and still maybe hit 'em, too. And you can fire a bow or throw a dagger while blinded just fine.


----------



## Minifig (Oct 3, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> But its line of effect isn't blocked at all, even when you're blinded. You can hurl a fireball in a room full of people you can't see and still hit 'em. You can hurl MM's in a room full of people you can't see and still maybe hit 'em, too. And you can fire a bow or throw a dagger while blinded just fine.





You're unable to tell that it's line of effect isn't blocked because you're too busy being blinded, therefore you can't throw off the effect to actually have the affect ... effect. Therefore you cannot have line of sight to throw the object or spell.


----------



## spayne (Oct 3, 2010)

Magic missile does not hit at all; it is not auto-hit.  It just deals damage as an effect, which does  not count as hitting the target.  Since MM does not make an attack roll, it can neither hit nor miss.


You do need line of effect for MM, but line of effect does not require line of sight.  You can use MM on a creature just fine while blinded as long as a clear line can be traced between your square and the target's.   A perception check is only needed to find a creature if it made a stealth check and has become hidden, otherwise you know exactly where it is, even while you are blinded.


----------



## Minifig (Oct 3, 2010)

spayne said:


> Magic missile does not hit at all; it is not auto-hit.  It just deals damage as an effect, which does  not count as hitting the target.  Since MM does not make an attack roll, it can neither hit nor miss.
> 
> 
> You do need line of effect for MM, but line of effect does not require line of sight.  You can use MM on a creature just fine while blinded as long as a clear line can be traced between your square and the target's.   A perception check is only needed to find a creature if it made a stealth check and has become hidden, otherwise you know exactly where it is, even while you are blinded.





I humbly disagree because Magic Missile is a Ranged Basic Attack, AND/OR a Standard action.

In order to do a standard action OR a ranged basic attack against a target you have to _see_ what you're targeting because otherwise how will you know what to hit with the line of effect? You have line of sight.. you SEE it.. then you use that line of sight to use your line of effect. That line effect is your MM spell. Revert back up to what I said one page ago. If you cannot see it, you cannot effect it with the affect you're trying to effect it with.


----------



## havoclad (Oct 3, 2010)

I believe there is a flaw in Minifig's argument.

Magic Missile does not have a range of "Ranged Sight" it has a range of "Range 20"

In the Rules Compendium p102 it describes the difference between Range X and Ranged Sight.  Ranged X does not require Line of Sight.  Just above that is noted "Line of Sight: Unless otherwise noted, the power's user doesn't have to be able to see the target"

To see if there are any other opinions I have also crossposted this question to  RPG StackExchange.


----------



## DracoSuave (Oct 3, 2010)

Minifig said:


> Magic Missile:




The fact it counts as a ranged basic attack is irrelevant.



> Ranged Sight says:




Nothing relevant.  Magic Missile does not have a range of 'sight.'



> Line of Sight says:




Nothing relevant.  Magic Missile does not have a range of 'sight.'



> Line of Effect says:




Something relevant.



> So reread the Line of Sight part.
> 
> It says: *If you can't see the target (for instance, if  you're blind or the target is invisible). * you can't have line of sight  to it even if you could draw an unblocked line between your space and  the target's.




Again, this is irrelevant.



> Without Line of Sight, you can't have Line of Effect, therefore you can't cast Magic Missile blinded without the perception check.




Your argument is based on the fact that ranged powers with a range of 'sight' require line of sight. 

Magic Missile is not one of those powers.  (Neither is ranged basic attack.)

Magic Missile's range is 20.  '20' and 'Sight' are not the same thing.



> QED.




Except you did not Demonstrandum anything to Quod Est.

It is a ranged power.  The point of origin is yourself.  So you need a single line of effect to the target.  However, it does not have an attack roll, therefore concealment does nothing.  All line of sight does for attacks is determine concealment.

You can use Magic Missile if you are blind just as you can use a Healing Word while you are blind.  Magic Missile is a power with no attack roll that has an Effect line.  (This is not technically the same thing as 'automatically hitting', tho you can grok it that way if you like)  Healing Word is a power with no attack roll that has an Effect line.  Unless that effect is explicitly negated by lack of line of sight (teleportation springs to mind) then there's no reason to believe Magic Missile behaves any different.

Moreover, one cannot hold the idea that Magic Missile cannot be used on a target while blinded, but that Ray of Frost can (with a -5 penalty.)  It's already established that yes, you can make ranged attacks while blinded.  Magic Missile benefits from that.



Minifig said:


> I humbly disagree because Magic Missile is a Ranged Basic Attack, AND/OR a Standard action.




I humbly disagree because bacon is not a vegetable.

Your points are irrelevant.



> In order to do a standard action OR a ranged basic attack against a target you have to _see_ what you're targeting because otherwise how will you know what to hit with the line of effect?




Nope.

1)  Unless the enemy has made a stealth check against you, you are aware of its location.  The rules are explicit about this.
2)  Ranged attack specificly states that you can use it against an enemy you cannot see.
3)  Nothing in Standard Action acts as an exception to either rule.
4)  Nothing in Ranged Basic Attack acts as an exception to either rule.



> You have line of sight.. you SEE it.. then you use that line of sight to use your line of effect. That line effect is your MM spell. Revert back up to what I said one page ago. If you cannot see it, you cannot effect it with the affect you're trying to effect it with.




Incorrect.  Line of Effect is not dependant on Line of Sight, and Line of Sight is not dependant on Line of Effect.  You're confusing 'making a ranged attack' with 'teleportation' which DOES behave as you state.

The only sort of ranged attack where this applies is with Gaze attacks and attacks with "Ranged sight"-range, which present an explicit exception to the line of sight rules 

Magic Missile does not have that keyword, or that range.


----------



## shamefuldirty g (Oct 3, 2010)

I would of thought that you would need to see the opponent even if it does hit automatically. That's just me though.


----------



## DracoSuave (Oct 3, 2010)

There IS no automatic hit.  It does not hit.  Automatically OR otherwise.

The word hit, or even attack roll, has NOTHING to do with the power.


----------



## Henry (Oct 3, 2010)

I'd have to agree with Minifig's reading of the rules - it also makes sense from my "common sense-o-meter", so that's the way I'd rule also. No line of sight, no targeting the auto-hitting spell.

EDIT: I had to change my mind after reading on Page 272: _"When you use a melee attack or a ranged attack, you can target a square instead of an enemy. This tactic is useful when the enemy has total concealment and you have to guess its location."_

So, yeah, by the rules you really can use magic missile to attack "the darkness."


----------



## Mirtek (Oct 3, 2010)

Sorry, for the double posting


----------



## Mirtek (Oct 3, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> But its line of effect isn't blocked at all, even when you're blinded.



 Which in this case doesn't matter. Here you need LoS and LoE, without LoS you're LoE doesn't matter.


Kamikaze Midget said:


> You can hurl a fireball in a room full of people you can't see and still hit 'em.



 That is because most powers only require LoE.


Kamikaze Midget said:


> You can hurl MM's in a room full of people you can't see and still maybe hit 'em, too.



 No, because MM requires LoS in addition to LoE.


Kamikaze Midget said:


> And you can fire a bow or throw a dagger while blinded just fine.



 Yes, because ranged weapon only requires LoE, however ranged sight does require LoS

It's a special restriction of the sight range that other ranges do not share.


havoclad said:


> I believe there is a flaw in Minifig's argument.
> 
> Magic Missile does not have a range of "Ranged Sight" it has a range of "Range 20"



 You see, that's what you get for answering after only having read page 1/2 and not caring enough for essentials to having read the new MM rules.

Since MM is ranged 20 instead of ranged sight the other posters are correct, you do not need LoS.


Minifig said:


> I humbly disagree because Magic Missile is a Ranged Basic Attack, AND/OR a Standard action.



 Correct, but entirely irrelevant.


Minifig said:


> In order to do a standard action OR a ranged basic attack against a target you have to _see_ what you're targeting



 No, in 4e you don't. Forget realism, the 4e rules simply say that you don't. The range sight thing is a special that only applies to range sight.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Oct 3, 2010)

> Yes, because ranged weapon only requires LoE, however ranged sight does require LoS




Magic Missile doesn't have a range of "sight," though. It has a range of 20. 



			
				Henry said:
			
		

> I'd have to agree with Minifig's reading of the rules - it also makes sense from my "common sense-o-meter", so that's the way I'd rule also. No line of sight, no targeting the auto-hitting spell.




It passes my "common sense-o-meter" because, in 4e, while you are "blinded," you still know exactly where everyone is. 

That in itself is a little logic-breaking, but the idea, I believe, is that you can tell where everyone is because you can hear them and smell them and feel them just fine. Your allies tell you where they are. And, because you're a Big Fat Hero, you can tell where your enemy is based on the sound of their footsteps and the noise of combat. Without a perception check. You just know where they are anyway.

So, even while you're blinded, you can chuck daggers and hurl flasks of acid and fire bows. You take a hefty penalty on your attack rolls, but you blast them in generally the right direction.

The enemy can only avoid you knowing where it is if it makes a Stealth check. In that case, it is trying to remain unseen and quiet, so you need to make a Perception check to know where it's at.

The new Magic Missile falls into the camp of being like a dagger that you don't have to make an attack roll for. Because you know where your enemy is, you can send your Magic Missile in the right direction, and it will hurt the enemy (the same thing that makes it go around armor and through shields makes the attack penalties from being blinded irrelevant as well). 

You know where your enemy is, even while blinded, so you can still attack in generally the right direction. And Magic Missile's magical ability is to hit the right enemy, even if it's only fired in vaguely the right direction. Which is why you don't need to make an attack roll for it -- it finds its own way to the target, just as it does if your target is in full plate with a kite shield, or is a dragon covered in scales, or is hiding in the bushes. 

You point at the enemy, and your magic dart hits them. You can still know where the enemy is, and still hit them, when you're blind (unless the enemy is also using Stealth, in which case, you can make a Perception check, or just try and guess).


----------



## Minifig (Oct 3, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> You point at the enemy, and your magic dart hits them. You can still know where the enemy is, and still hit them, when you're blind (unless the enemy is also using Stealth, in which case, you can make a Perception check, or just try and guess).





How do you point at the enemy? You can't see it.

The magic missile won't know where to go. 

You're effectively pointing off into the darkness.

Just because I'm pointing in one direction doesn't mean it's going to necessarily follow that path.. read the description of the power.

It says it's a Ranged Basic Attack, AND/OR a Standard action.

In order to do either of them, you have to have a sight check to do it.

Example:

In order to swing my weapon as a warden to hit something, I have to do a sight check. If I can't see it, I can't hit it. That's because it's a standard action.

If my warden attempts to use his x-bow, and he can't see it, that's a ranged basic attack.

If my warden cannot see the thing he's attacking..there will be no effect to affect the thing he's trying to effect. He's ... attacking the darkness. 

The same thing applies if he's blind.

Cover your eyes.

Pick an object in your room to attack.

Now .. attack it with your hand. 

Did you hit it assuming it wasn't too far away?

Now .. do the same .. only throw a piece of balled up paper with at it while your eyes are closed/covered etc. No peeking!

Did you hit it again?

Now you've experienced 'blind' effects.

You need to roll a perception check, you cannot perceive the object when your eyes are blind because you cannot see it.


----------



## Mirtek (Oct 3, 2010)

Minifig said:


> It says it's a Ranged Basic Attack, AND/OR a Standard action.
> 
> In order to do either of them, you have to have a sight check to do it.



 No, you don't. The only exception is the range of sight. If the range is just weapon or a fixed number of squares you don't need LoS


Minifig said:


> Now you've experienced 'blind' effects.



 Which in 4e means a simple -5 to hit, that's all. As has been mentioned you're even aware exactly where everybody is unless they also make a stealth check.


----------



## Minifig (Oct 3, 2010)

Mirtek said:


> No, you don't. The only exception is the range of sight. If the range is just weapon or a fixed number of squares you don't need LoS




It says it's a ranged basic attack.

Our DM told us that in order to do any basic attack; eg: any at will; you _must_ have the ability to do that action.

How can you see what you're targeting if you're blind?

I don't understand how hard it is for some of you to grasp that idea..


Sure, you can throw it off, but you have to have something for it to hit, and in order for the wizard to have something to hit.. he has to be able to see it first. In order to see it first, he has to be able to see it, because as much as I hate to say it.. casting magic missile counts as an action. What are you going to cast if you can't see anything to cast it at? It's a waste of the at will power, unless .. of course.. you really are attacking the darkness.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Oct 3, 2010)

> How do you point at the enemy? You can't see it.




Same way you fire a bow or throw a dagger at them: your friends tell you where to aim, and your ears and other senses guide you, and you are a Big Fat Hero, so you know where an enemy is by the sound of its footsteps and the smell of its sweat. 

Being blinded doesn't make you unable to know where the enemy is.

Close your eyes for a moment. Now imagine someone opening the door to the room and shouting a battle cry at you. Think you could chuck a book in their general direction? That's what being blinded is kind of like, according to the 4e rules.



> In order to do either of them, you have to have a sight check to do it.




That's not true, though. Standard Actions don't require any sort of check of any sort, and ranged attacks, as I've pointed out, don't require you to see what you're aiming at. Because you can tell where your enemy is without having to see them. 



> In order to swing my weapon as a warden to hit something, I have to do a sight check. If I can't see it, I can't hit it. That's because it's a standard action.




That's not true, though. If you're blinded, you can still know where your enemy is and swing at them with your sword and maybe hit them. You take a pretty big penalty, but you can still give it a whirl and maybe hit them -- maybe even crit them!



> If my warden cannot see the thing he's attacking..there will be no effect to affect the thing he's trying to effect. He's ... attacking the darkness.




He's attacking the sound and smell and feel of the goblin, where his friends say the goblin is, he can still affect the target, even if he can't see it. 

You don't need to see something to be able to attack it. 



> Now you've experienced 'blind' effects.




It still won't stop me from hitting, say, my bookcase, or my desk with both of those. Because I know where they're at. Because I can have other people point them out. And they're not even moving around and grunting and bleeding and smelling like an orc. It'd be even easier in that case.



> You need to roll a perception check, you cannot perceive the object when your eyes are blind because you cannot see it.




Sight is not the only sense we have. I can perceive things with touch and smell and sound. Especially if those things are monsters trying to kill me and I am a Big Fat Hero capable of doing superhuman things like guiding my attacks with sound.


----------



## Minifig (Oct 3, 2010)

You have to look at page 272 of your PH1.



> Choosing targets: When you use a melee attack or a ranged attack, you can target a square instead of an enemy. This tactic is useful when an enemy has total concealment and you have to guess it's location.



You just agreed that MM is a ranged attack.. so.. you have to choose what the ranged attack is going to hit..


Notice what it says there?

_You have to_ target something.
_
You have to_ choose what your targeting.

_You have to see it_.

If you're blinded, you get a -20 perception check to actually see what you say you see.. no matter if it's an enemy or a square off in the distance..



> Sight is not the only sense we have. I can perceive things with touch  and smell and sound. Especially if those things are monsters trying to  kill me and I am a Big Fat Hero capable of doing superhuman things like  guiding my attacks with sound.




Just because you can hear it doesn't mean that it's not around.. I know this for a fact, in the campaign we're currently playing .. my old character before I changed to a warden had a perception of 20. He couldn't see anything but his insight (also 20), let him know he could hear something.. where was it?

Underground.


----------



## malraux (Oct 3, 2010)

Minifig said:


> It says it's a ranged basic attack.




Nitpick: no it isn't.


----------



## Minifig (Oct 3, 2010)

malraux said:


> Nitpick: no it isn't.





It's ranged. Right? 

We all agree it's 'ranged'.

It's an at will action against an enemy, I believe that falls under the definition of an 'attack'..


Therefore..

It's a ranged.. attack.


----------



## Mirtek (Oct 3, 2010)

Minifig said:


> Our DM told us that in order to do any basic attack; eg: any at will; you _must_ have the ability to do that action.



 Your DM is wrong, that is not how the 4e rules work


Minifig said:


> You have to look at page 272 of your PH1.



 If you have the PHB1 in front of you, take a look at page 281 


Minifig said:


> You just agreed that MM is a ranged attack.. so.. you have to choose what the ranged attack is going to hit..



 Correct. However that doesn't requires you to be able to see your choice. Not being able to see your choice is simply -5 to hit which happens to be meaningless for MM


----------



## Minifig (Oct 3, 2010)

Mirtek said:


> Your DM is wrong, that is not how the 4e rules work





Immobilize would like to have a word with you as well then.

If you're immobilized you don't have the ability to do basic attacks..


----------



## Mirtek (Oct 3, 2010)

Minifig said:


> Immobilize would like to have a word with you as well then.
> 
> If you're immobilized you don't have the ability to do basic attacks..



 You do, see page 277 PHB1


----------



## I'm A Banana (Oct 3, 2010)

> Notice what it says there?
> 
> You have to target something.
> 
> ...




That's not what it says, though.

Look, let's compare the actual text:

Magic Missile.

Blinded.

The key point is that blinded says "You can't see any target (your targets have total concealment)."

Concealment.

Magic Missile is not a ranged basic attack (though it can also be used that way). While blinded, I can't see my target, which means I take a -5 penalty on melee and ranged attack rolls against them (*I CAN STILL TARGET THEM*, with any sort of attack! Bursts and blasts don't even take that penalty!). Since Magic Missile isn't a ranged basic attack, and, even if it was, doesn't have an attack roll, there is nothing to apply the -5 penalty to, in any case. 

By the RAW, I can still unerringly hit anything within 20 squares with a magic missile, even if I can't see them, because I don't need to be able to see things in order to hit them. 

Look, I'm not really trying to win an argument here. I'm just telling you what the game actually says, and that it makes logical sense to me (if I can shoot a thing with an arrow, I should be able to shoot it with an MM). If you want to do it differently, I don't care.


----------



## Minifig (Oct 3, 2010)

Even if it is an auto attack.. you have to see what you're attacking to attack it.

I don't understand why that's so hard to understand.


----------



## Mirtek (Oct 3, 2010)

Minifig said:


> Even if it is an auto attack.. you have to see what you're attacking to attack it.



 You do not. The rules are clear. You can attack enemies you can't see at -5 with melee and ranged attacks and even without penalty with a close or area attack


----------



## malraux (Oct 3, 2010)

Minifig said:


> Even if it is an auto attack.. you have to see what you're attacking to attack it.
> 
> I don't understand why that's so hard to understand.




Because you don't.  You have to be able to perceive your target.  Smell, hear, etc. all give you the ability to perceive a target.  Now, because the target has total concealment, it can on its turn attempt a stealth check to hide.  If the target were to do so, then the blind attacker needs to use his perception check with appropriate penalties to detect the target.


----------



## Minifig (Oct 3, 2010)

I'd chuck this up on the DDI forums, and point out the points that all of us have made.. and see what the other members there say.


----------



## Bold or Stupid (Oct 3, 2010)

Minifig said:


> Immobilize would like to have a word with you as well then.
> 
> If you're immobilized you don't have the ability to do basic attacks..




Prove this.

Immobilised states that you can not move except by teleport, or being pushed, pulled or slid.

Move - Any instance of movement, whether it is done willingly or unwillingly. Whenever a creature, an object or an effect leaves a square to enter another, it is moving.

So how does that stop any attack?

I think you have misunderstood the rules somewhat and are reading to large an effect into keywords.


----------



## Minifig (Oct 3, 2010)

Bold or Stupid said:


> Immobilised states that you can not move except by teleport, or being pushed, pulled or slid.
> 
> Move - Any instance of movement, whether it is done willingly or unwillingly.






Attacking is a movement... do you swing your arms when you attack, and do you do it willingly?

Yes. 

Therefore, it's a movement, you do it willingly and therefore it falls under MOVE.


----------



## malraux (Oct 3, 2010)

Minifig said:


> Attacking is a movement... do you swing your arms when you attack, and do you do it willingly?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Therefore, it's a movement, you do it willingly and therefore it falls under MOVE.




No.  But hilarious.


----------



## Bold or Stupid (Oct 3, 2010)

Minifig said:


> Attacking is a movement... do you swing your arms when you attack, and do you do it willingly?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Therefore, it's a movement, you do it willingly and therefore it falls under MOVE.




No it doesn't the term move as it stands for the GAME are in the post you quoted, notice how attacking, or taking something from your pocket are not mentioned. Therefore they are not part of the game term MOVE, so not stopped Immobilised.


----------



## DracoSuave (Oct 3, 2010)

Minifig said:


> Even if it is an auto attack..




WRONG.

It is not an auto attack, an auto hit, an auto anything.  It is a ranged attack power that has no attack roll and therefore does not hit anything.  It has an effect that includes damage.  That does not make it automatically do anything it does not do.  On top of this, THIS IS NOT RELEVANT.



> you have to see what you're attacking to attack it.




WRONG.

Go to your Player's Handbook, and open up to page 281.

You will find a sectioned called... wait for it...

*ATTACKING WHAT YOU CANNOT SEE*

"If you’re fighting a creature you can’t see—when a creature is invisible, you’re blinded, or you’re fighting in darkness you can’t see through—you have to target a square rather than the creature. You also have to figure out which square to attack. Here’s how it works."--It goes on into greater detail but you get the picture.

When you have a section of the rules explicitly devoted to attacking things you cannot see, and they tell you can, in fact, do so, then any argument that you cannot attack things you cannot see is automatically wrong.  

This is one of the few cases of an automatic miss in the game.

Not to mention, you are aware of the location of any creature that is not hidden from you.

"If an invisible creature is not hidden from you, you can hear it or sense some other sign of its presence and therefore know what space it occupies, although you still can’t see it."

This is from the errata'd version, as well as from the PHB2.  Page 224.



Minifig said:


> Immobilize would like to have a word with you as well then.
> 
> If you're immobilized you don't have the ability to do basic attacks..




WRONG.

_IMMOBILIZED
You can’t move from your space, although you can teleport and can be forced to move by a pull, a push, or a slide._

Page 277, PHB.  It says nothing about affecting attacks, ranged, basic, or otherwise.



> I don't understand why that's so hard to understand.




IRONIC


----------



## Minifig (Oct 3, 2010)

Man, WoTC needs to clear some of this terminology up..


----------



## fba827 (Oct 3, 2010)

cavalier973 said:


> Okay, I ran into this the other day while playing one of the Red Box encounters with my kids.  The goblin hex hurler through a blinding curse (I can't remember the exact name of the power) at the party's wizard, which lasts until the goblin's next turn.  The wizard, on his turn, threw a magic missile at the goblin hexer.  Since MM is an "always hits" spell, I ruled that the hexer was hit, even though the wizard was blind while casting it.  But is there a rule that addresses this situation?




*Going back to the OP*, the official rule directly out of the PHB (or Rules Compendium if you're using that, but it's the same thing).... Look up "Line of Sight"   in the rules compendium it's p100 at the top about 'targeting' and again on p106 for a fuller description that says the same thing in more words.  ((It's written the same way in the PHB1, just different pages and I don't have that book handy at the moment.))

But basically:
You do not need line of sight to use a power unless the power specifies a target that you can see (for instance, some powers say things like close burst 1, target all enemies you can see -- that would require line of sight.  By contrast, some powers just say close burst 1, all enemies -- that does not require line of sight so it could be done even when blinded).

If magic missile says "target: one creature you can see" then you need line of sight (in addition to line of effect).  But if magic missile says "Target: one creature" then you just need line of effect (and not line of sight).
Since you're not making an attack roll, the penalty for total concealment has no chance to come in to play with this attack.

Having said all that, if your DM decides to rule otherwise for the purposes of table agreement or plot/campaign/situational reasons, then, by all means, go with your DM's ruling in that situation.


----------



## Minifig (Oct 3, 2010)

fba827 said:


> But basically:
> 
> If magic missile says "target: one creature you can see" then you need line of sight (in addition to line of effect).  But if magic missile says "Target: one creature" then _you just need line of effect (and not line of sight)_.
> Since you're not making an attack roll, the penalty for total concealment has no chance to come in to play with this attack.





I still disagree with that. I _still_ think you need a line of sight to have a line of effect.

The reason is because how can you effect something you can't see?


----------



## Saagael (Oct 3, 2010)

Minifig said:


> The reason is because how can you effect something you can't see?




The same way I could close my eyes and punch the wall. I am effectively blinded, and I still hit the wall, affecting both my hand and the wall.

Just because you can't see something does not mean you cannot interact with it. I could close my eyes and swing a sword at someone, and still have a chance at connecting: I know where they are (sound, touch, smell, etc), and can therefore reasonably position my swing (the same way I can punch a wall) despite being blinded.

Magic is even less picky, since you have burst and blast attacks. I could be blinded, but if I throw a grenade into a room, that grenade doesn't give a damn whether I can see or not, it'll still blow the place to pieces. Now replace a grenade with a fireball spell.

Magic Missile cares EVEN LESS. It's like a targeting missile, that tracks down your target and hits them. You don't have to see to know what target you want to hit. I can close my eyes and still picture someone. (I use the term "hit" in this example for simplicity's sake, not to argue whether MM hits or not).


----------



## DracoSuave (Oct 3, 2010)

Minifig said:


> I still disagree with that. I _still_ think you need a line of sight to have a line of effect.
> 
> The reason is because how can you effect something you can't see?




Line of Effect means only an unbroken line where anything in that line can somehow be affected by what is at the point of origin.

Take a dark hallway.  Beyond the limits of light, it is dark, and you cannot see.  However if you shoot a beam of lightning down the hallway, it can reach into the darkness of the hallway.  That is because line of effect determines what it can reach, and it doesn't have anything to do with line of sight.

Another example.

You have a guy hiding in a bush... obscuring terrain.  You cannot see that enemy, but that doesn't stop you from guessing where that enemy can be, and launching magic in his direction.  That bush doesn't stop your magic from working, it merely makes it harder.  If they are not actively hiding from you, you can even determine their location within that bush automatically.  So you know whereabouts to launch that pew pew magic.  You make the attack roll, and the concealment makes it harder to hit them.  It does not make it impossible however, you could still get lucky.

Some magics don't require attack rolls tho... a Healing Word ALWAYS works in its target.  You don't have to know exactly where they are, you just know who you're targetting and whereabouts they probably are, and the power of magic does the rest for you.  Magic Missile is the same... you just need to know what you're trying to damage with it, and whereabouts it is.  It is not a precision tool... it is 'fire-and-forget' magic that does the rest for you.


----------



## Minifig (Oct 3, 2010)

DracoSuave said:


> Another example.
> 
> You have a guy hiding in a bush... obscuring terrain.  You cannot see that enemy, but that doesn't stop you from guessing where that enemy can be, and launching magic in his direction.  That bush doesn't stop your magic from working, it merely makes it harder.  If they are not actively hiding from you, you can even determine their location within that bush automatically.  So you know whereabouts to launch that pew pew magic.  You make the attack roll, and the concealment makes it harder to hit them.  It does not make it impossible however, you could still get lucky.
> 
> Some magics don't require attack rolls tho... a Healing Word ALWAYS works in its target.  You don't have to know exactly where they are, you just know who you're targetting and whereabouts they probably are, and the power of magic does the rest for you.  Magic Missile is the same... you just need to know what you're trying to damage with it, and whereabouts it is.  It is not a precision tool... it is 'fire-and-forget' magic that does the rest for you.





You yourself just said you have to GUESS where the person you're firing at is.

I hate to say it.. but.. that's a perception check.

If you don't perceive there is something out there to attack from the bush... why would you even bother throwing out the magic missile?

Blindness grants -10 against perception.


----------



## DracoSuave (Oct 3, 2010)

Minifig said:


> You yourself just said you have to GUESS where the person you're firing at is.
> 
> I hate to say it.. but.. that's a perception check.
> 
> ...




Go to page 273 of your PHB.  Read what Line of Effect is.  Then go to PHB2, p 223.  Read about how perceiving an enemy that is not hidden works.

Then come back here, and try again.

The rules are -very clear- about how this all works.  Your confusion stems from reading unrelated rules and assuming how things work.  Instead, if you want to know what Line of Effect is, read the section entitled 'LINE OF EFFECT.'  If you want to know if you can attack things you cannot see, read the section entitled 'ATTACKING THINGS YOU CANNOT SEE.'

If you want to know how magic missile works, do you read the power 'Reaping Strike?'  No.  

This ain't rocket surgery, pal.


----------



## Truename (Oct 3, 2010)

I think y'all have been trolled, and brilliantly.


----------



## DracoSuave (Oct 3, 2010)

Truename said:


> I think y'all have been trolled, and brilliantly.




Possibly, but I don't like to respond with 'You're trolling' to this sort of thing.


----------



## Minifig (Oct 3, 2010)

Truename said:


> I think y'all have been trolled, and brilliantly.





Actually, as much as I hate to admit it Truename, 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





, though perhaps it might gain me some respect.. I'm still new to D&D 4e, hence my asking all the questions and raising the debate as much as I have. 

I will also openly admit it that it appears that I'm wrong, and I'm glad we've got such a great forum to discuss such things, especially with as screwy as WoTC's wording is in the books. Though, for some reason, it's sorta slow for me.. (loading, reloading and refreshing pages.. not sure if it is for anyone else..) though I'm getting used to it.


----------



## Zaukrie (Oct 4, 2010)

It's magic. It does not need to be directed by your thoughts, or actions, or sight at all.

For fluff:

You call upon the power of magic. Magical power flies out of your hands, and hits your enemy(ies).

Nothing there requires you to target anything. Just think about it as magic that hurts creatures you don't like. Don't think about it as targeting at all. Erase that pre-conception from your mind, then read the power.


----------



## Ahrimon (Oct 4, 2010)

It's been slow for me too.

ENWorld is a great place.  It's my go to place for questions.  (even when I don't want to hear the right answer.  hehe.)


----------



## the Jester (Oct 4, 2010)

Minifig said:


> Actually, as much as I hate to admit it Truename,
> 
> 
> 
> ...





I'm glad you're enjoying the game enough to enjoy a hearty debate about it, and many of us ENWorlders are totally happy to engage in discussions. Ask away, we're happy to help! 



Minifig said:


> I will also openly admit it that it appears that I'm wrong, and I'm glad we've got such a great forum to discuss such things, especially with as screwy as WoTC's wording is in the books. Though, for some reason, it's sorta slow for me.. (loading, reloading and refreshing pages.. not sure if it is for anyone else..) though I'm getting used to it.




Yeah,  ENWorld has a tendency to occasional bouts of slowdown, but it's often worth the wait. 

Edit: All that said, and absolutely conceding that by the RAW _magic missile_ should auto-hit even if you're blinded, I'd _still_ call for a Perception check. That's not the rules, that's a ruling.


----------



## Mirtek (Oct 4, 2010)

Minifig said:


> You yourself just said you have to GUESS where the person you're firing at is.



 Only if you don't know where the person is, which is not automatically a result of blindness in 4e.


Minifig said:


> I hate to say it.. but.. that's a perception check.



 It is, if the person is also hiding from you with a stealth check. Otherwise you know where the person is even while blind without needing a perception check. See _targeting what you can't see_ on page 281 PHB1


----------



## Minifig (Oct 4, 2010)

the Jester said:


> Edit: All that said, and absolutely conceding that by the RAW _magic missile_ should auto-hit even if you're blinded, I'd _still_ call for a Perception check. That's not the rules, that's a ruling.




Me too.. because to hit something you have to perceive it, and to perceive it's existence, you have to do a perception check.

That just makes logical sense to me, if you're blinded, you'd get the debuff against you too.


----------



## Mad Hamish (Oct 4, 2010)

Minifig said:


> Me too.. because to hit something you have to perceive it, and to perceive it's existence, you have to do a perception check.
> 
> That just makes logical sense to me, if you're blinded, you'd get the debuff against you too.




There are a couple of factors here
a) You're getting confused between 'terms of art' and the general meanings of words

if a word in D&D has a game definition it doesn't mean anything more or less than that in the game. The Immobilised condition doesn't do anything more than the condition description says, blinded doesn't do anything more than the description says etc.

b) You've got to be careful about what common sense seeming stuff applies to D&D 
lots of people use common sense arguments to say 'a martial powered character couldn't do that' and nerf a heap of classes which causes imbalances. It gets especially bad when combined with a)

As to the idea that you have to see somebody to affect them many a person has been hit by blind fire in the real world and, unlike Shadowrun, there's nothing explicite in the D&D magic system stating that you have to be able to perceive a target directly.


----------



## Shin Okada (Oct 4, 2010)

Minifig said:


> Me too.. because to hit something you have to perceive it, and to perceive it's existence, you have to do a perception check.




To hit something (though, by the rule MM does not HIT anything), you have to perceive it?. On that part, you are not right.

You can throw in a fireball in somewhere and still attack someone whom you did not know he was there. It is like throwing in a grenade in a room even if you don't know someone is in the room or not.

To target someone. you have to perceive it? I guess you are right.

To perceive it's existence, you have to do a perception check? On this part, you are not right.

In D&D 4e, you do not need to make a perception checks to perceive someone's existence unless when that one is hiding.

In the heat of battle, combatants are assumed that unless they are hiding, making enough noise and such. Thus it is easy to perceive a combatant's location without any perception skill check at all. Instead, that's the invisible or totally concealed combatant who needs to make a *Stealth* check in order to make his existence not being perceived.


----------



## On Puget Sound (Oct 4, 2010)

MY magic missiles are flying silver piranhas made of pure force, that dissipate after biting.  So of course they have eyes.  Not my fault if yours don't.


----------



## DracoSuave (Oct 4, 2010)

Minifig said:


> Me too.. because to hit something you have to perceive it,




This part is true.



> and to perceive it's existence, you have to do a perception check.




This part is not.  If it is not hidden from you (i.e. it did not succeed in a stealth check against your passive perception) than you've perceived it because it failed to hide.

In a technical sense you are correct--Finding something that is hidden is an opposed check... it is their Stealth roll vs a Passive Perception.  You win if your Passive Perception is higher, or if they tie you and your Perception mod is higher.  Passive Perception is, by the rules, you taking 10 on your Perception check, and it therefore counts as you making a perception check.

In other words, if they are not hidden from you, you made your perception check without ever rolling the dice.

This point is moot however.  The rules say explicitly that if they do not make a Stealth check (either by succeeding or just not making it at all) then you can perceive their location.  'Making a perception check' only applies when they've successfully made their stealth check against you; this is the only occurance where you must make perception checks to find them.

Invisible does not mean 'imperceptible.'  It means 'cannot be seen.'  Blind does not mean 'cannot perceive the world.'  It means 'cannot see.'  Neither confer the ability to hide from anyone without making a roll.



> That just makes logical sense to me, if you're blinded, you'd get the debuff against you too.




Which is fine, you do have penalties for being blinded... but those penalties do not apply to magic missile.  If you know in what square the target is, you can magic missile it.  The rules are extremely clear on this point.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Oct 4, 2010)

Minifig said:


> I still disagree with that. I _still_ think you need a line of sight to have a line of effect.
> 
> The reason is because how can you effect something you can't see?



Simple.  I can't see you but can hear you behind that book case.  I push the book case over on you.  There.  I've affected you.  I've just been attacked by an invisible sword, so I thunderwave the area it's coming from, forcing _everything_ in that area backwards.  I've affected whoever was there whether I could see them or not.

As for Magic Missile, you miss what's special about it.  It's a homing missile and automatically hits anyone.  You can have superior cover against it (i.e. be looking out through an arrowslit) and total concealment (i.e. looking out through an arrowslit through a thick fog cloud).  And it still won't worry the Magic Missile.  The thing homes in using the magic that created it.  For almost all other spells the caster needs to focus on the target - with Magic Missile the caster focusses on creating the homing missile and lets it do the work.  That is why Magic Missile doesn't need a to hit roll - and that is why it still works when blinded.

Oh, and immobilised refers to someone being grabbed, or their feet being glued to the floor, or vines wrapping round their legs, or any one of a number of other effects.  Restrained would be if their whole body was entangled - and if they were totally paralyzed they'd be helpless.


----------



## Amphimir Míriel (Oct 4, 2010)

So, to recap:

1.- There is nothing in the actual rules that says you cannot attack [-]the darkness[/-] a target you cannot see with a magic missile, and have it hit the target with the same infallible precision as always.

2.- There's nothing that stops Minifig, or any other DM from requiring a perception check to make the attack, or simply from disallowing it completely. It is the DM's prerogative to make rulings at his/her games.

Glad we could all agree!


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Oct 4, 2010)

Amphimir Míriel said:


> So, to recap:
> 
> 1.- There is nothing in the actual rules that says you cannot attack [-]the darkness[/-] a target you cannot see with a magic missile, and have it hit the target with the same infallible precision as always.
> 
> ...




That is exactly right, Amphimir.  Now if we could only train folks here on the boards to respond to these arguments with "Well, I don't know what the real rule is, but I'm making the choice to use XXXX for my own game..." as opposed to "No, you're wrong, the rule is XXXX because it makes the most sense..." we'd all be a lot better off.


----------



## Pbartender (Oct 4, 2010)

PHB said:
			
		

> When you use a melee attack or a ranged attack, you can target a square instead of an enemy. This tactic is useful when an enemy has total concealment (page 281) and you have to guess its location.




In other words, you've made your Perception check and you beat the enemy's Stealth check by enough (by 10 or more) to know the exact square the "invisible" creature is standing in...  (See the sidebar "Targetting What You Can't See" on PHB page 281) on page Then you can target that square, make the attack against the invisible enemy, and suffer any penalties to attack that total concealment inflict (none, in the case of Magic Missile).  Otherwise, you guess on a target square and hope you get lucky.

Also, read page 273, as it's pretty clear about Line of Effect and Line of Sight.  You can have one or the other, without having both.  For example, fog may block line of sight, but it doesn't block line of effect.  Likewise, a glass window blocks line of effect, but not line of sight.

The kicker is that you must have line of effect to the target's origin square to attack or create an effect, but you do not need line of sight (the last paragraph on PHB page 273).


----------



## havoclad (Oct 4, 2010)

Pbartender said:


> In other words, you've made your Perception check, and you beat the enemy's Stealth check by enough (by 10 or more) to know the exact square the "invisible" creature is standing in...  (See the sidebar "Targetting What You Can't See" on PHB page 281) on page Then you can target that square, make the attack against the invisible enemy, and suffer any penalties to attack that total concealment inflict (none, in the case of Magic Missile).  Otherwise, you guess on a target square and hope you get lucky.




Replace invisible with hidden in your quote and I believe it all is correct.  While invisibility will generally help you in becoming or maintaining hidden, it will not grant it by itself.

If a target is invisible but not hidden you still know which square it is in.


----------



## Pbartender (Oct 4, 2010)

havoclad said:


> Replace invisible with hidden in your quote and I believe it all is correct.  While invisibility will generally help you in becoming or maintaining hidden, it will not grant it by itself.
> 
> If a target is invisible but not hidden you still know which square it is in.




No...  invisible is correct.  If you've successfully made the Perception check to find the invisible target's location, then they are no longer hidden but they are still invisible.

Besides, I purposefully put the scare quotes there to denote the fact that the target simply can't be seen -- due to invisibility, blindness, darkness, fog...  it doesn't matter -- rather than the specific condition.


----------



## MrMyth (Oct 4, 2010)

Minifig said:


> It says: *If you can't see the target (for instance, if you're blind or the target is invisible). *you can't have line of sight to it even if you could draw an unblocked line between your space and the target's.
> 
> Without Line of Sight, you can't have Line of Effect, therefore you can't cast Magic Missile blinded without the perception check.




I'm sorry, but you are completely misreading some of the rules here. Line of Sight is not required to have Line of Effect. They are seperate elements. By your logic, being blind would prevent a character from making any attacks at all - I hope its self-evident how absurd that is, especially since there are _specific rules for attacking enemies you can't see_.  

The truth is that Magic Missile automatically hits the target, even if you are blind. Provided, however, that you declare the appropriate square to attack - if you are blind and the enemy sneaks away from where you think he is, the Magic Missile may fail since you are targeting an empty square. 

Now, most groups will allow other non-blinded PCs to point out to the blind PCs where the enemies are, so that will usually be enough. If that bothers you, one would instead need to have the Wizard making Perception checks to hear where an enemy is, and if they fail, force him to guess at whatever location he wanted to attack.


----------



## eamon (Oct 4, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> I'm sorry, but you are completely misreading some of the rules here. Line of Sight is not required to have Line of Effect. They are seperate elements. By your logic, being blind would prevent a character from making any attacks at all - I hope its self-evident how absurd that is, especially since there are _specific rules for attacking enemies you can't see_.




You really should finish reading before posting: that argument's already been made; and in fact, Minifig graciously said...


Minifig said:


> I will also openly admit it that it appears that I'm wrong, and I'm glad  we've got such a great forum to discuss such things, especially with as  screwy as WoTC's wording is in the books. Though, for some reason, it's  sorta slow for me.. (loading, reloading and refreshing pages.. not sure  if it is for anyone else..) though I'm getting used to it.


----------



## the Jester (Oct 4, 2010)

For those of you still debating the argument, both Minifig and I have conceded the argument, but are both comfortable making rulings contrary to the RAW in this case. 

Just FYI, since it seems to have slipped past a number of people.


----------



## MrMyth (Oct 4, 2010)

Yeah, my bad there. This second page was clearly invisible to me - cursed wizards!


----------



## Maddach Urquhart (Oct 4, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> Yeah, my bad there. This second page was clearly invisible to me - cursed wizards!



 Guess you couldn't "perceive" it - damn you vile blinded effect!!!


----------



## Festivus (Oct 4, 2010)

Page 277 of the PHB is a great page to photocopy and stick somewhere for reference.  That's the conditions page, and tells you everything you need to know about immobilize and blinded.

For magic missile, as someone stated above, my ruling would be if you have line of effect, you can auto-hit with it, even if you are blinded.  Flavor it however you want (perhaps the missiles have arcane sight?) to have it make sense, but it's not a huge amount of damage and should be permitted to go through.

For immobilized, it means you can't move from your square.  The example of an attack being a move doesn't apply... it would if you were petrified however.  Very different conditions.

Also remember the most important rule, that it be FUN for all involved.  If it makes sense and is something that would be fun for the players to experience, you might have that magic missile miss when they are blinded... but have a good reason for it that makes the encounter more fun.


----------



## Festivus (Oct 4, 2010)

grr, double post, sorry.  ENW acting a little odd lately with the quick reply button for me.


----------



## Mand (Oct 4, 2010)

Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible

This is everything you need to know about hidden, stealth, perception checks to counter it, targeting things you can't see, "do I take the mini off the board when the wizard casts invisibility"


----------



## DracoSuave (Oct 4, 2010)

the Jester said:


> For those of you still debating the argument, both Minifig and I have conceded the argument, but are both comfortable making rulings contrary to the RAW in this case.
> 
> Just FYI, since it seems to have slipped past a number of people.




You can do this... but remember that you'd be doing so in cases where their target failed a stealth roll against a passive perception check that was at -10 for being blind.

If the stealth guy failed THAT badly... throw a frikken bone to the perceiver.


----------



## The Little Raven (Oct 4, 2010)

One thing you forgot, DracoSuave, is that you can actively perceive something on your turn. This is a Perception roll against the creature's last Stealth check (presumably, the one that beat your Passive Perception to become hidden from you).


----------



## DracoSuave (Oct 4, 2010)

The Little Raven said:


> One thing you forgot, DracoSuave, is that you can actively perceive something on your turn. This is a Perception roll against the creature's last Stealth check (presumably, the one that beat your Passive Perception to become hidden from you).




In cases where the opponent is actually hidden (i.e. they used Stealth) then obviously you can attempt Perception.  But in the case where they are not, I strongly suggest not giving the guy you can't see additional benefit by requiring a further test of their perception;  Either the enemy is not bothering/broke stealth, or the enemy failed their stealth check against Passive Perception -10.

The -10 to checks for being blind DOES apply to Passive Perception, as it is considered a check where you take 10.  And if the enemy failed stealth that badly, they shouldn't get benefit.


----------



## Wednesday Boy (Oct 5, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> That's not true, though. If you're blinded, you can still know where your enemy is and swing at them with your sword and maybe hit them. You take a pretty big penalty, but you can still give it a whirl and maybe hit them -- maybe even crit them!




"Boba Fett!?  Where??"


----------



## Psikerlord# (Oct 5, 2010)

If you're suffering the blind condition, all that means if you're -5  to hit your target. You still know exactly where he is... unless he makes a stealth check, and you fail your perception test, in which case he becomes hidden and you don't know where he is, or even if he is still around. At that point, I'd say MM cannot target him ... because you don't even know if there is a target ... it would be like firing into every empty room you come across, just in case an invisible wizard is lurking there..


----------



## cavalier973 (Oct 6, 2010)

Psikerlord# said:


> it would be like firing into every empty room you come across, just in case an invisible wizard is lurking there..




Wait...isn't that, like, standard procedure while dungeon crawling?


----------



## Mad Hamish (Oct 6, 2010)

Nah, you throw the gnome into the room to see if there's anything lurking.


----------



## DracoSuave (Oct 6, 2010)

Psikerlord# said:


> At that point, I'd say MM cannot target him ... because you don't even know if there is a target ... it would be like firing into every empty room you come across, just in case an invisible wizard is lurking there..





I'd say MM can target the square you think they might be in, and if you guessed correctly, you MM them, otherwise, you don't.

Cause that's how the rules work.


----------



## Rabbitbait (Oct 7, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> Yeah, my bad there. This second page was clearly invisible to me - cursed wizards!




And yet you still managed to attack!


----------

