Timeline for answer to Can you prevent players using cantrips to tell whether a creature is disguised as an object? by KilrathiSly
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Post Revisions
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 3, 2022 at 20:58 | comment | added | KilrathiSly | @WakiNadiVellir I indicated of course because of the specific context of a paranoiac caster that thinks everything around him is a mimic. (see my above answer to TREB). | |
| Feb 3, 2022 at 20:57 | comment | added | KilrathiSly | @TREB The rules prohibits to cast a spell on an invalid target on prupose. BUT XGE p85 (indicated in my response) has a rule for when a spell in unintentioanlly cast at an invalid target (in that specific question the caster is paranoiac and assumes every objects are Mimics so as long as he is concerned he is casting EB at a valid target.. So the spell goes off and you apply the XGE P85 rule. | |
| Feb 1, 2022 at 23:29 | comment | added | TREB | "Eldritch blast cast at an object: The spells goes off normally" how? the rules for EB says it targets creatures, the spell simply cannot be cast unless it targets a creature so it cannot go off at all. | |
| Feb 1, 2022 at 23:28 | comment | added | WakiNadiVellir | That being said, I agree with the gist of this answer | |
| Feb 1, 2022 at 23:27 | comment | added | WakiNadiVellir | As this question and its answers demonstrate, it's not "of course". It's quite common to rule, that when spell description says a beam streaks towards a creature, it means creature. Ray of Frost can be used to eg. freeze dead food, RAW, even if it can be used to freeze creatures. This is a problem with the rules, not "of course". | |
| Feb 1, 2022 at 23:20 | history | edited | KilrathiSly | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 22 characters in body
|
| Feb 1, 2022 at 23:16 | comment | added | KilrathiSly | @WakiNadiVellir to answer your question about the visible spell effect whether the target is valid or invalid is the same... the answer is ... " YES of course". why would it not ? Nowhere in the rules is written anything to assume otherwise. | |
| Feb 1, 2022 at 23:15 | comment | added | KilrathiSly | @WakiNadiVellir added the mimic example that clarifies everything and shows that there is no way to avoid or skip the mimic surprise attack with that process. | |
| Feb 1, 2022 at 23:15 | comment | added | WakiNadiVellir | So the core of this answer is: Casting this kind of an attack roll cantrip at an invalid target produces visible effects very simlar to effects of casting it at a creature. Correct? | |
| Feb 1, 2022 at 23:14 | history | edited | KilrathiSly | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 815 characters in body
|
| Feb 1, 2022 at 23:06 | comment | added | KilrathiSly | @WakiNadiVellir The crackling does qualify to see that a spell is being cast, but there is no way your PC can tell what the effect on the target is unless it seriously injures it, kills it, renduers it uncounscious or changes its states in a extremely perceivable way. A perception or medecine check on the target is thereafter needed to notice these effect if they want to know. this takes huge amount of time (at least 1 min per check). | |
| Feb 1, 2022 at 23:01 | history | edited | KilrathiSly | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 599 characters in body
|
| Feb 1, 2022 at 22:51 | comment | added | WakiNadiVellir | "The effect like crackling lightning", an Eldritch Blast or a Ray of Frost beams certainly qualify. Also, these spells don't have a saving throw, so the second excerpt does not apply, as it seems to be quite carefully worded to only apply to spells with saving throw. | |
| Feb 1, 2022 at 22:48 | history | answered | KilrathiSly | CC BY-SA 4.0 |