Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer Creatures
Frozen Sick
D&D Beyond Basic Rules
Basic Rules (2014)
Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in- Marketplace
Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer CreaturesFrozen SickD&D Beyond Basic RulesBasic Rules (2014)Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in
Benign Transportation is a 3rd level Conjurer Sub-class ability
Relevant text of Benign Transportation: "...you teleport up to 30 feet to an unoccupied space that you can see. Alternatively, you can choose a space within range that is occupied by a Medium or smaller creature. If that creature is willing, you both teleport, swapping places."
So, an unoccupied space requires you to see the space. But the alternative use only asks that you choose a space within range that is occupied by a medium or smaller creature. It never says you have to be able to see that space...
RAW, it seems so.
EDIT: but see comment#16.
You still need to see them. Even though the second sentence doesn't repeat "that you can see," general D&D targeting rules require you to have line of sight to target a creature or space unless an ability explicitly says otherwise.
AFAICT, only spells generically require line of sight (Edit: And they still say they require line of sight when they do require it). An attack doesn't require line of sight, for example. I can't find a general targeting rule that requires line of sight.
This isn't a spell. (And it felt the need to require you to see an empty space. If that was a general rule requirement, why specify in one place?)
No. What's required is that the target doesn't have Total Cover. But line of sight is only required if the spell or ability says so.
So in this case Squirrelloid is correct: You don't need line of sight to swap places.
While I agree RAW (thanks, moderators, for restoring my accidental reply deletion :-/), sometimes this kind of text makes me uneasy.
Speaking of spells, usually the ones that target a number of creatures without an attack roll require line of sight (e.g. Bane, Command, Haste, Teleport), and Area of Effect spells usually don't.
However, there are some spells not needing "a creature that you can see" (or creatures) that have always felt odd to me. Just a few examples from a quick search: Aid, Beacon of Hope, Bless, Feather Fall, Message, Prayer of Healing, Rary’s Telepathic Bond, Ray of Enfeeblement, Sanctuary, Shield of Faith, Spare the Dying, Water Breathing or Water Walk.
And frankly, I don't know if this is just a well-templated issue with the books.
So after this long text... maybe the intent for Benign Transposition (not a spell, right) is that you need to see the willing creature.
In that case I would also make that argument for Dispel Magic...
Yeah... :( Don't you agree it's odd?
I agree nothing say seeing is required.
I think it's odd that we'd be required to see in the first place. We can target someone we can't see with any attack spell, but not when it's a save? Doesn't make any sense in terms of roleplay, and it makes it way too easy to shut down spellcasters.
BBEG: "I am the greatest archmage of all time! I have bypassed Mystra's ban and can cast level 10 spells. I will obliterate you!"
The party: "Alright guys, let's play it by ear" *opens the Eversmoking Bottle*
BBEG: "Ah no! Smoke! My only weakness!"
It's silly...
I think you can read it as not requiring you to see the creature to swap places, however I don't feel like that is the correct reading.
"...you teleport up to 30 feet to an unoccupied space that you can see. Alternatively, you can choose a space within range that is occupied by a Medium or smaller creature. If that creature is willing, you both teleport, swapping places."
To me it reads as the second sentence modifies the "unoccupied" qualifier from the first sentence. Instead of an "unoccupied" space, you can select an "occupied space" (space occupied by a creature), in which case you gain the ability to swap places.
I see it as the "that you can see" is necessary in the targeting, and the options are "unoccupied" or "occupied, with extra effects".
However if someone ran it with the interpretation that you can target an occupied space without seeing it, I couldn't fault them, as the wording is vague.
@MaximusArael020 that's a sensible reading, I agree.
There's two problems with your reading: First, "Alternatively" starts a new sentence. It's an alternative to the previous sentence. Second, 'an unoccupied space that you can see' is one clause grammatically. You can't break it up like that, because its a single unit. Further, 'that you can see' grammatically refers to 'an unoccupied space'. There's no grammatical ambiguity here. The wording isn't vague, it's just counter-intuitive.
You could rewrite it to say what you want it to say, but it does not say that as written.
(If sight was meant to be required for both of them, the correct way to write it would be something like: "Choose a space you can see within 30': If it is unoccupied, you teleport there. If it contains a willing creature, you both teleport, swapping places.")
This does not follow.
"Deal 15d10 fire damage to target creature. Alternatively, you can do cold damage."
The ability is, I admit, ambiguously written, but MaximusArael020's reading is valid, and also almost certainly what they meant.
Is that an actual rule quote? Because that's just terrible writing. I do not consider that a valid counter-example, because I don't think that text is functional.
(Does WotC seriously not employ any technical writers who understand how grammar works?)
It is not extant rules text, nor should it be, but it would be completely functional if it were. You know exactly what is meant, and there is no ambiguity.
It is a counter-example to your idea that "alternatively" must replace the previous sentence. It introduces a second option, and the scope of the option must be deduced from context. The context in the case of Benign Transportation leaves room for ambiguity.
Well, part of the problem is that people don't necessarily agree how grammar works, and indeed it varies.
5 and 5.5 made the deliberate stylistic choice to not write everything in a formal mechanical style, but instead in looser language, and that was certainly a choice that they made.
But it means that trying to carefully parse out the grammar and wording to determine what they actually meant is fraught, and can easily lead to "that's ambiguous". Such as this case. It can be read either way, but it seems quite likely to me that they meant that you still have to see the critter you swap with.
I think a good example would be the Blight example.
Relevant text:
Would you say that in the case of Blight that if you are targeting a nonmagical plant that you don't have to see it? You have to see a creature, even a Plant creature, to target it, but if it's a normal tree you would merely sense it and kill it?
You certainly could read it that way. The second sentence does not say "a nonmagical plant you can see". Actually, it doesn't say "within range" either, so if we assume that the second sentence completely supersedes the first, then you could use Blight to kill any nonmagical plant in the realm. Kind of a funny thing to do to that herbologist that didn't give you a discount 5 sessions back, but I doubt that is what is intended.
I would've said 'within range' is redundant text, as the spell has a range listed, and an effect must always originate within range. So no killing any nonmagical plant anywhere.
On the other hand, I would indeed say that doesn't require you to see the nonmagical plant.
I totally get that you are saying you read it that way. Like I said, I can see how it could be read that way.
Do you feel that the intent of the spell was to make you target a Creature that you can see, but to be able to kill non-creature plants without seeing them?
Yup. You don't need to see an occupied space. Features do what they say.