LoS vs. Touch, a fight to the cast Options

[Straight Razor]

Question: a spell that requires LoS to cast. Could it be cast at touch. in a blind situation, around a corned behind you back(mugging) or total dark.
i can see argument for both sides.

[Kagetenshi]

IMO, yes.

~J

[Velocity]

I'm not sure I understand the question. Do you mean only using touch, like if the caster is blind?

[Apathy]

IMO, if the spell is LOS, then the caster must be able to see or astrally percieve the target. So, if the mugger grabs you from behind, and you can't turn your head around to look at him, and you can't astrally percieve him [whether astral perception is limited to the direction your eyes are looking is a whole other topic], then you're screwed.

[Kagetenshi]

I'm curious, in your opinion do Touch-range spells then have capabilities that regular spells do not? Or do you just rule that you must have LOS to target even if you're touching them for all spells?

~J

[hyzmarca]

Touch is just a limited range version of LOS. Both perform the function of creating a conduit for mana between the caster and te target or subject. However, the conduit formed by touch is stronger and has less resistance, thus less drain.
Reasonably, one should be able to use either technique and benefit from the approperiate drain reduction at touch range. However, that isn't the way the spell rules work.

Depending on one's interpertation one could cast spells using touch just as one can cast spells at a lower force but without drain reduction or casting spells with touch would require learning the spell as touch range. Both interpertations have their benefits and their consequences.

[Kagetenshi]

[Apathy]

[Kagetenshi]

Right. I'm asking if that's the way you play it.

~J

[Apathy]

It's never actually come up, and now I no longer have a group.

If I did have a group, I'd probably ask the rest of the players out of game what they're preference was, and either go by the strict rule or house-rule according to their preference (recognizing that either way it could work for or against them in the future.)

[edit]I personally don't feel strongly about this either way. If it were entirely up to me, I'd probably go with a strict interpretation, since that's the easiest defensible position.

[Adarael]

Just FYI, there is almost no conceivable situation where someone could grab a magician from behind and the magician couldn't cast a spell on them. Why is that? Well, seeing *any* part of the target is theoretically enough to form the mana conduit needed to turn their innards into soup. Sure, if you were really playing hardball, you could rule a guy with a hand over your eyes would have the penalties for 90% cover, since 'all' you could see was his hand. But being able to look down and see a knee, a hip, a hand, his shoes... those are all you need.

[SMDVogrin]

[Crusher Bob]

Burn a hole in your pants with one of the multitude of independent cybereyes (with lasers!) implanted in your cyberleg(s), then let the bastard have it.

:rotfl:

[Tweeble]

If the attacker has his hand over your eyes, so you can't see him, and you percieve to see his aura, would you be able to cast using LOS, or does his aura become intertwined with your own?

[Oracle]

I think I read in an errata or in the spell-construction rules that touch fullfills LoS requirement.

[Sandoval Smith]

[Velocity]

So what happens when a mage is captured? If a spellcaster is bound, gagged and blindfolded, are you suggesting that she could cast spells on anyone who grabbed her and hoisted her up?

[PiXeL01]

IMO if you can touch someone with your hand then you can cast whatever touch spell you like in the sense that you transmit all the magic you need to your hand and it is then discharged into whatever you touch with it.

Hand over the eyes thing? Visual mod maybe, other than that I dont know. It has never come up in my games

[PlatonicPimp]

I'd play it off as two entirely separate things. If the spell requires touch, you must touch the target, but it works even if you can't see. If the spell requires LOS, you have to see them, even if you are touching them.

And I was always under the impression that touch spells were cast through your hands. Being touched isn't good enough, your hands have to be in contact with the target.

[Dog]

Sounds like a SNAD. If I was GMing and had to make the call right now, I'd allow it.

[Apathy]

[PlatonicPimp]

Not unless they specifically bought the spell with that as their touching extension, and hands not allowed. in other words, when you have a spell with a range of touch, you have a specific part of your body you have to touch with.

[The_Gun_Nut]

In one of the older magic books, it clarified that to hit someone with a spell you needed to perceive the target. Touching a target with your eyes closed qualified, regardless of the actual range of the spell. You didn't even have to be the one touching, someone could grab you and you could fire off the spell. How they will clarify this edition is up for grabs, but I don't think it will be too different.

[Kagetenshi]

That raises questions about being able to hear or smell the target, though, so I'm not entirely sad they got rid of it.

~J

[hyzmarca]