Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Dumpshock Forums _ Shadowrun _ Line of Sight
Posted by: Tomothy Mar 14 2007, 06:54 AM
Ok, so I know I've been asking a lot of questions lately. Please bare with me.
What is the deal with LOS in magic? Apparently it's mandatory but Detection spells don't seem to use it. (After all what's the point in trying to detect life if you can only detect life forms you can see?) Do illusion spells like Invisibility and Mask only affect people (or technological devices) the caster can see? If someone sneaks up on you are they unaffected by your spell? If you fail to notice a camera in the corner of the room are you out of luck? If a magician casts Mask or Invisibility on a fellow runner and that runner nips around the corner, who can see through the illusion?
Sub-question:
If I want to use the spell Foreboding (p171 Street Magic) do I have to wait until I can see people to cast the spell? If I cast it when no one is around will it only affect people later if they are in the area of effect and I can see them? Does the area of affect have to be directly in front of me ie in my LOS, or can I be the centre of the affected area? If I wanted the spell to affect people trying to sneak up behind me would I have to make a whole new spell that has the target mechanics of mask with the general effect of foreboding?
Eg.
Horrific Visage
Type: M • Range: T • Duration: S • DV: (F ÷ 2)
The Horrific Visage spell requires the caster to touch the subject. The subject assumes a different physical appearance (of the same basic size and shape) chosen by the caster. This alters the subject’s voice, scent, and other physical characteristics as well. Anyone who might see through the disguise must first successfully resist the spell. Simply make one Spellcasting Test and use the hits scored as the threshold for anyone that resists at a later point. Any character that does not resist the spell who wishes to stay in the same area as the subject will suffer a –1 dice pool modifier to all actions for each net hit scored by the caster, representing their shaking, fear, and nervousness, for as long as the spell is sustained. At the gamemaster’s discretion, characters who suffer a dice pool modifier greater than their Willpower may be unable to stay in the area, or may simply curl up into a gibbering ball.
Posted by: ShadowDragon Mar 14 2007, 07:49 AM
I think this is the root of your questions.
| QUOTE |
| Do illusion spells like Invisibility and Mask only affect people (or technological devices) the caster can see? |
LOS is only required during the spell's casting to the target. Spells like invisibility target the person/object you're making invisible, not everything that might see the person/object.
Posted by: Mistwalker Mar 14 2007, 08:06 AM
LOS isn't needed for every spell.
Some have a range of touch, so theoretically, a blind mage could cast it (heal for example).
Direct combat spells need LOS for you to be able to affect the target.
Indirect combat spells only need LOS to where the spell goes off, then anything in the target area is affected.
Sustained spells that affect others, like Improved Invisibility, affect any who come into effective range of the spell. For Imp Inv, it is LOS, so, any tech device or living creature that can "see" the spell cloaked target, has to make it's resistance checks. If it fails, then they can't see the target. If they pass, then they can see the target. So, a guard on patrol that keeps entering and leaving the area of effect of the spell, get's to keep making resistance checks.
For other spells, like detect living beings, any time one enters the area of effect of the spell, resistance is checked, to see if the spell detects them. Or affects them for spells like foreboding.
Does that clear it up a bit for you? Or have I just muddied the waters?
Posted by: Tomothy Mar 14 2007, 08:14 AM
I get it. I'm going to have to make a new spell to get the effect I want.
Posted by: ShadowDragon Mar 14 2007, 08:17 AM
| QUOTE (Mistwalker @ Mar 14 2007, 03:06 AM) |
| Sustained spells that affect others, like Improved Invisibility, affect any who come into effective range of the spell. For Imp Inv, it is LOS, so, any tech device or living creature that can "see" the spell cloaked target, has to make it's resistance checks. If it fails, then they can't see the target. If they pass, then they can see the target. So, a guard on patrol that keeps entering and leaving the area of effect of the spell, get's to keep making resistance checks. |
That's a strange interpretation. Quite frankly that's a little silly. Suppose I know there's someone invisible near by because I can hear him. Can I blink 10 times and get 10 resistance checks? How is that any different from the guy on patrol?
What about the spell silence? It's LOS, so am I only affected when I see the person who's silent?
LOS is ONLY required between the caster and the target, not the rest of the world. Sustained spells work identically to combat spells in this respect.
Posted by: Tomothy Mar 14 2007, 08:28 AM
I'm sure this has been asked before, but what happens when the target runs out of LOS? Is the spell broken or does it remain sustained? And what happens when a target moves outside the bounds of an area spell?
Posted by: Mistwalker Mar 14 2007, 08:46 AM
| QUOTE (ShadowDragon) | ||
That's a strange interpretation. Quite frankly that's a little silly. Suppose I know there's someone invisible near by because I can hear him. Can I blink 10 times and get 10 resistance checks? How is that any different from the guy on patrol? What about the spell silence? It's LOS, so am I only affected when I see the person who's silent? LOS is ONLY required between the caster and the target, not the rest of the world. Sustained spells work identically to combat spells in this respect. |
The guard on patrol, that keeps leaving the area of effect, is physically leaving the area of effect. Blinking doesn't remove you from the area of effect. If you know someone is there, because you heard them, then you have other options
Silence isn't LOS, it is LOS(A). You can cast the spell at LOS range, with an area of effect at the target point of the spell. So, you now have a small area (force x meters) that has sound damping happening, most likely no sound coming out of it. If you enter the area, then you will not hear anything. If you are outside of it, you will not hear what is going on inside of it.
LOS is required between the caster and the target, true, but things change if it an area effect spell.
Page 198, in the description of range for detection spells, second paragraph, it explains what happens when someone enters the area of effect after the spell has been cast and sustained.
Posted by: Mistwalker Mar 14 2007, 08:52 AM
| QUOTE (Tomothy) |
| I'm sure this has been asked before, but what happens when the target runs out of LOS? Is the spell broken or does it remain sustained? And what happens when a target moves outside the bounds of an area spell? |
As long as the spell is systained, you don't need to keep LOS in effect.
If your "target" was not the target of the spell, then once they move out of the area of effect, the spell stops affecting them. Example: Silence was cast. If you are not the target, and manage to get out of the area of effect, then you can now hear normally. If you are the target for the spell, then the spell stays centered on you.
If you pass thru a mana barrier or ward, then there is a chance that the spell will be disrupted, and cease to work.
Posted by: ShadowDragon Mar 14 2007, 08:58 AM
*hits head against wall*
Invisibility doesn't have an area of effect. It effects one thing: The person or object made invisible. LOS has NOTHING to do with the guard on patrol.
Posted by: Mistwalker Mar 14 2007, 09:04 AM
| QUOTE (ShadowDragon) |
| *hits head against wall* Invisibility doesn't have an area of effect. It effects one thing: The person or object made invisible. LOS has NOTHING to do with the guard on patrol. |
Invisibility has a range of LOS.
So, that guard, when he comes around the corner, does a resistance check, fails, continues on his rounds, leave the area of effect (goes around the corner).
The next time he comes around the corner, he gets a new resistance check.
The guard at the desk, talking to his buddy, would only get one resistance check, even if he turned his head away to make a snappy comeback to his buddy, losing sight of the invisible char, as he is still in LOS.
Does that help any?
Posted by: laughingowl Mar 15 2007, 01:08 AM
| QUOTE (Mistwalker) | ||
Invisibility has a range of LOS. So, that guard, when he comes around the corner, does a resistance check, fails, continues on his rounds, leave the area of effect (goes around the corner). The next time he comes around the corner, he gets a new resistance check. The guard at the desk, talking to his buddy, would only get one resistance check, even if he turned his head away to make a snappy comeback to his buddy, losing sight of the invisible char, as he is still in LOS. Does that help any? |
Note quite:
Invisibilty has a range of LOS to the target. THE TARGET IS THE PERSON OR OBJECT GOING INVISIBILE NOT THE PERSON TRYING TO SEE THE INVISIBLE OBJECT.
So mage cast Invisibilty on himself (he can see himself) and goes invisible.
Now any time the guard has a chance to see the mage, he would make an opposed test to see if he can notice the invisible mage. No LOS issues.
And as sustaining a spell does not require LOS, even if the mage makes the sammy go invisible and the sammy runs ahead around a corner and through a door, he is still invisible and if a guard has a possiblity of seeing him he makes an perception test opposed by the invisiblity.
The only 'tricky' one would be area sustained manipulation types stpells (orgy).
At the time of casting the mage must have LOS. (and he must have LOS to move the effect); however, he does not need LOS to sustain it.
Mages looks at a spot (technically suspposed to be a preson or object not 'space' (carry a pile of wodden twigs (simple objects) to use as targets). Makes a success test and notes the sucesses.
Now from my reading of the rules every time the guard walks into the area effect (as long as mage is sutaining regardless of LOS), the guard would need to resist the effects of the spell. If somehow pulled out of the area of effect, the spell would stop. (atleast until he walked back into it).
Until somebody comes along to dispell/counter an orgy dropped on the entrance/exit to public tranportation could be great fun. slapped at low power so must dont notice it/have any effect, but a small percentage of the people collapse in pleasure...
Posted by: Garrowolf Mar 15 2007, 01:19 AM
Okay so I have a question about vehicles. If I cast orgy on a sign towards the end of a runway so that passing planes are in the area of effect as they take off and land would they be effected? I remember something about vehicles limiting something from earlier ed but I can't remember (I think it had to do with driving a car through a mana wall or something like that but I think my example is funnier).
Posted by: ShadowDragon Mar 15 2007, 01:49 AM
By RAW, you try to resist invisibility only once with willpower and counterspelling if available (or intuition + counterspelling for imp invis). According to page 201 under the description for illusion spells, "if the spell is not completely resisted, the character is fully affected by the illusion <period>" Not until they come into range of the invisible person again, not until they return to "LOS"; they are fully affected.
If you fail that roll, you can attempt a perception test vs their shadowing or infiltration every chance you might hear or see signs of the invisible person.
Posted by: Crakkerjakk Mar 15 2007, 04:42 AM
LOS Theoretical:
I cast Stunball, a indirect, mana based, AoE spell, at a van that contains five people.
Does it affect only the people I can see? Or can I cast it directly in front of the windshield, even though said windshield is mirrored and there's no way for me to see the occupants, and affect everyone in the van? If it requires a living target, what if I can see the driver? Will it just affect just him if he's the only one I can see?
I see explicit statements for direct combat spells affecting everything in their AoE, but all i can find for indirect is that I have to see my "target" in order to cast one. Is that anyone I wanna affect in the AoE, someone who is the center of my AoE, or just some point in space?
Posted by: Mistwalker Mar 15 2007, 04:47 AM
| QUOTE (ShadowDragon) |
| By RAW, you try to resist invisibility only once with willpower and counterspelling if available (or intuition + counterspelling for imp invis). According to page 201 under the description for illusion spells, "if the spell is not completely resisted, the character is fully affected by the illusion <period>" Not until they come into range of the invisible person again, not until they return to "LOS"; they are fully affected. If you fail that roll, you can attempt a perception test vs their shadowing or infiltration every chance you might hear or see signs of the invisible person. |
You have to be consistant in applying the rules.
So, if I apply your interpretation to Mass Agony, anyone who was in the area of effect, would suffer the illusion spell, even if the spell's area of effect had moved, or if they had moved out of the area (perhaps carried).
To me, that doesn't make sense.
Spells have an area of effect. If you move out of the area of effect you are no longer affected by the spell. If you move back into the area of effect, you get a new resistance check.
Posted by: Mistwalker Mar 15 2007, 04:56 AM
| QUOTE (Crakkerjakk) |
| LOS Theoretical: I cast Stunball, a indirect, mana based, AoE spell, at a van that contains five people. Does it affect only the people I can see? Or can I cast it directly in front of the windshield, even though said windshield is mirrored and there's no way for me to see the occupants, and affect everyone in the van? If it requires a living target, what if I can see the driver? Will it just affect just him if he's the only one I can see? I see explicit statements for direct combat spells affecting everything in their AoE, but all i can find for indirect is that I have to see my "target" in order to cast one. Is that anyone I wanna affect in the AoE, someone who is the center of my AoE, or just some point in space? |
Stunball is a direct combat spell.
But for the purpose of your question, no, the spell would not affect the 5 people in the van if it was an indirect mana based spell. Your indirect spell's target would not be in the van, so the mana spell would not be able to go thru the physical barrier of the windshield.
You have to remember that mana spells are affected by the astral plane, and on the astral plane, physical objects have "shadows" that you cannot see thru. Mage can "fly" thru them, but not see thru them.
For an enclosed object, your spell would need to be able to "shatter/break" at least part of the physical barrier before it could affect anything inside that closed object.
So, an indirect fire spell would probably not be able to affect the occupants of the car, but one with a sonic effect probably would as it would shatter the window, allowing it to then continue on to the occupants.
Posted by: ShadowDragon Mar 15 2007, 05:27 AM
| QUOTE (Mistwalker @ Mar 14 2007, 11:47 PM) | ||
You have to be consistant in applying the rules. So, if I apply your interpretation to Mass Agony, anyone who was in the area of effect, would suffer the illusion spell, even if the spell's area of effect had moved, or if they had moved out of the area (perhaps carried). To me, that doesn't make sense. Spells have an area of effect. If you move out of the area of effect you are no longer affected by the spell. If you move back into the area of effect, you get a new resistance check. |
It's perfectly consistent because invisibility is NOT an area of effect like mass agony. Invisibility has an effect on the individual target only. Understand now?
Posted by: pestulens Mar 15 2007, 06:55 AM
FanPro clarified maters in the faq
| QUOTE |
| When casting an Indirect Combat spell, do you need to see the target? Or can you cast at a target completely behind cover since they use ranged combat rules? You do need the see the primary target of the spell. However, as noted in the errata, Indirect Combat spells will affect other targets that are unseen by the caster as long as they are caught within the spell's area of effect. Note that the same ruling for grenades applies to Indirect Combat spells cast "at the ground" -- if the attempt is to catch targets in the spell's effect radius, treat it as an Opposed Test, no matter where the spell is actually aimed. |
It is also worth noting that there are no indirect mana spells in the mane book and street magic menchens that indirect spells must be physical.
Posted by: Mistwalker Mar 15 2007, 07:22 AM
| QUOTE (ShadowDragon) |
| It's perfectly consistent because invisibility is NOT an area of effect like mass agony. Invisibility has an effect on the individual target only. Understand now? |
It may be a matter of semantics,
but I think that an spell that can affect 100k plus people (think stadium), has an area of effect. The area of effect is "anyone who can perceive", which to me is LOS.
Yes, one individual target is invisible (one being, one drone, one car, one bus, one 18 wheeler, etc...) to all in LOS. Not all in a 6 meter radius, not all in 6 km radius, but all in LOS.
To me, that screams area of effect. And so, I apply the spell to any who enter the area of effect, no matter how many times (my patrolling guard again).
Anyways, that is my interpretation.
Posted by: ShadowDragon Mar 15 2007, 07:57 AM
No, that's your houserule.
Posted by: Mistwalker Mar 15 2007, 08:07 AM
| QUOTE (ShadowDragon) |
| No, that's your houserule. |
Now why is that because my interpretation of RAW is different from your, that that means that it is a house rule?
Posted by: ShadowDragon Mar 15 2007, 06:23 PM
Because you're making a spell that by RAW is not labeled as an area spell, and makes no sense as an area spell, into an area spell.
Posted by: Mistwalker Mar 15 2007, 09:28 PM
Then what do you call a spell that once cast on a single target, can affect people and or tech several kilometers in either direction?
Posted by: dionysus Mar 15 2007, 09:44 PM
| QUOTE (Mistwalker) |
| Then what do you call a spell that once cast on a single target, can affect people and or tech several kilometers in either direction? |
I would argue that it isn't *affecting* all those people, those people are *perceiving* the effect of the spell on the target, who *is* affected by the spell.
I.e. invisibility affects the (single) target by making them invisible, which effect is perceived by anyone who would normally see the target.
Interestingly enough, here's what the rules say:
"Invisibility affects the minds of viewers. Improved invisibility creates an actual warping of light..." (BBB, p202)
The LOS in the book, however, refers to caster's relationship to target, not the person perceiving the target. Since its duration is listed as "sustained," the spell keeps going as long as the caster concentrates (or uses a focus, etc).
Since it's talking about affecting minds, I would say blinking/looking away or even leaving doesn't give you another resistance test: once you fail the test, your mind is affected.
Hopefully I'm making sense.
Posted by: hyzmarca Mar 15 2007, 09:56 PM
Actually, we need to get the terminology straight. Indirect illusions are cast on a subject. The Target is the whomever gets to make a resistance test.
The subject is whom or what the spell is cast on. The target is whomever or whatever may suffer the effects of the spell. In most cases, such as direct combat spells, the two are the same. In others, such as detection and indirect illusion (and maybe indirect combat), the subject and the target(s) are different.
When a magician casts invisibility, it is cast on a subject. It then targets anyone who interacts with the spell via the subject. Such interaction may simply be sensory. For example, any person who sees an invisible subject is the target of the spell. Likewise, anyone who can be seen by a subject benefiting from a vision enhancement spell is a target of the spell and gets a resistance test.
It may also be physical. Anyone who stands in the same area as a fireball spell is a target of the spell, for example, and anyone who stands in the same area as a silence spell is a target of the spell.
Posted by: Unarmed Mar 15 2007, 09:58 PM
| QUOTE (Mistwalker) |
| Then what do you call a spell that once cast on a single target, can affect people and or tech several kilometers in either direction? |
Invisibility doesn't technically affect people or tech several kilometers in either direction. As written, it affects only one person, the target of the spell. That's what the LOS refers to. The person being made invisible must be seen by the caster for the spell to work. It makes more sense with improved invisibility because there's not all that junk about the spell directly affecting the minds of the people seeing them, it just bends light around the person.
Edit: Bleh, too slow, others have already said the same thing, more clearly. =P
Posted by: Mistwalker Mar 15 2007, 10:54 PM
That is why I said it may be semantics
Since anyone who can perceive the subject, has to be, by definition, in LOS, it just adds to the confusion. 
I think the whole discussion took a semantics detour when it came to determining if a target who can perceive the subject leaves and arrive at a place where the target can again perceive the subject, does that target get a new resistance check?
Silly me, I prefer rules to be general and constant.
If you go thru a Fire Wall and successfully resist, taking no damage, then go thru that wall again, I believe that you should again have to resist taking damage.
Same for leaving and re-entering the range of dection spells.
And, once again 
, for Invisibility or Improved Invisibility, within reason. Blinking, looking away, etc.. should not trigger a new resistance check. But, a guard on patrol, who comes around 30 minutes later, I feel, should get another resistance check (well, as long as he is alert and actually looking around, and not just going thru the motions )
Posted by: ShadowDragon Mar 15 2007, 11:01 PM
| QUOTE |
| Silly me, I prefer rules to be general and constant. |
Your reasoning would be correct if invisibility was an area effect spell like fire wall or mass agony. It is not. Therefore, the rules as myself and others are explaining are general and constant.
Your houserule, however, is not consistent. What exactly is the difference between the guard who blinks or looks away and the guard who returns 30 minutes later? A time limit?
Posted by: Mistwalker Mar 16 2007, 10:46 AM
| QUOTE (ShadowDragon) | ||
Your reasoning would be correct if invisibility was an area effect spell like fire wall or mass agony. It is not. Therefore, the rules as myself and others are explaining are general and constant. Your houserule, however, is not consistent. What exactly is the difference between the guard who blinks or looks away and the guard who returns 30 minutes later? A time limit? |
I really don't like the fact that because my interpretation is different from yours, that you assume that you are right, that I am wrong, hence whatever I say is a house rule.
Any rule needs a bit of common sense.
Your interpretation, well, if I push it a bit: cast Improved Invisibility and walk into a dark bar, and have a chance of being perceived by the off duty and drunk as skunk guards. Sustain the spell, have spirits sustain it while I sleep in my apartment across town. And then, 4 days later (and 4 services from a spirit or just a sustaining focus) I can walk right by that same guard crew, who are now fully awake, alert and professionally doing their job?
To me, that seems ludicrous, but it also seems to be fully supported by your interpretation of the rules.
As for when there should be a new resistance check, once the target is out of perceiving view of the subject?
I have already stated that blinking, looking away, turning and talking to a buddy shouldn't cause a new resistance check, as you are still in perceiving range (which happens to be exactly the same range as LOS). But, as with a lot of rules, it boils down to the GMs call, as there are too many variables for a single ruling to cover them all.
Personnally, a security guard on patrol, who is half asleep, just going thru the motions, probably wouldn't get a new resistance check either, but, part of the Secret Service guard detail for the President, who is sweeping that area again, I would say that they get a new resistance check.
Posted by: hyzmarca Mar 16 2007, 11:14 AM
When to resist Invisibility is a game balance issue, not a magical rules issue. By logic, resistance tests should occur constantly. That doesn't work out too well, however.
As it is, you might as well ask when a guard gets to make a perception test to see a character who is using infiltration or shadowing. The answer is the same in both cases.
Posted by: ShadowDragon Mar 16 2007, 05:58 PM
| QUOTE |
| Your interpretation, well, if I push it a bit: cast Improved Invisibility and walk into a dark bar, and have a chance of being perceived by the off duty and drunk as skunk guards. Sustain the spell, have spirits sustain it while I sleep in my apartment across town. And then, 4 days later (and 4 services from a spirit or just a sustaining focus) I can walk right by that same guard crew, who are now fully awake, alert and professionally doing their job? To me, that seems ludicrous, but it also seems to be fully supported by your interpretation of the rules. |
The mage who lets the guards fail their resistance check ahead of time is spending a lot of time, effort, and resources (to bind the spirits and to find the guards drunk in a bar) for this trick. The mage can't even be certain these are going to be the same guards on that shift, or if he is he did a lot of legwork first. Because of all the work involved, I see no problem with allowing it. I like it when my players are creative.
| QUOTE |
| As for when there should be a new resistance check, once the target is out of perceiving view of the subject? I have already stated that blinking, looking away, turning and talking to a buddy shouldn't cause a new resistance check, as you are still in perceiving range (which happens to be exactly the same range as LOS). But, as with a lot of rules, it boils down to the GMs call, as there are too many variables for a single ruling to cover them all. Personnally, a security guard on patrol, who is half asleep, just going thru the motions, probably wouldn't get a new resistance check either, but, part of the Secret Service guard detail for the President, who is sweeping that area again, I would say that they get a new resistance check. |
Your "interpretation" is too loose. The purpose of game rules is to avoid the cowboys and Indians problem. If the players don't know what to expect from your sporadic ruling of magic, they can't plan ahead.
Posted by: Mistwalker Mar 16 2007, 07:21 PM
| QUOTE (ShadowDragon) | ||
The mage who lets the guards fail their resistance check ahead of time is spending a lot of time, effort, and resources (to bind the spirits and to find the guards drunk in a bar) for this trick. The mage can't even be certain these are going to be the same guards on that shift, or if he is he did a lot of legwork first. Because of all the work involved, I see no problem with allowing it. I like it when my players are creative. |
I like my rules to work both ways, for PCs and NPCs.
I know that most players would be just a tad bit upset if a GM pulled something like that on them, cries of foul, railroading, etc..
Not counting that I think that that interpretation would make certain spells, like Invisibility out of proportionaly powerful.
Hmm, and what happens to this sustained spell when one of the targets, after sobering up, goes to astral perception for some reason (or a mage looks at him), will there be a line of magic going back to the cast spell? some way of tracking it astrally?
Hyzmarca, I agree, it is a game balance issue, and I believe that the way I do it, is similar, if not the same to your way of when a guard get's a new perception test for infiltration/shadowing, they get a new resistance check.
Your description is much neater and shorter than mine
Posted by: ShadowDragon Mar 17 2007, 01:45 AM
| QUOTE |
| I like my rules to work both ways, for PCs and NPCs. I know that most players would be just a tad bit upset if a GM pulled something like that on them, cries of foul, railroading, etc.. |
I don't see why you couldn't do the same trick to a PC if the situation were appropriate. It would take just as much work for a NPC. This has nothing to do with railroading. Maybe you should give your players more credit, or just find less whiny ones.
| QUOTE |
| Not counting that I think that that interpretation would make certain spells, like Invisibility out of proportionaly powerful. |
Not really. Grenades still work just fine
| QUOTE |
| Hmm, and what happens to this sustained spell when one of the targets, after sobering up, goes to astral perception for some reason (or a mage looks at him), will there be a line of magic going back to the cast spell? some way of tracking it astrally? |
Invisibility doesn't extend to the astral, whether or not the resistance roll was passed. If you mean astral signatures, because invisibility is not an area effect, the signature stays on the subject.
| QUOTE |
| Hyzmarca, I agree, it is a game balance issue, and I believe that the way I do it, is similar, if not the same to your way of when a guard get's a new perception test for infiltration/shadowing, they get a new resistance check. Your description is much neater and shorter than mine wink.gif |
Except if someone passes a perception check, they still suffer the -6 penalty in combat. Clearly this isn't the same as constant resistance rolls that completely nerf the spell.
Posted by: Mistwalker Mar 17 2007, 03:54 AM
I think that we will have to agree to disagree on this subject
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)