My group has a bard that is hitting creatures with Dissonant Whispers that he cannot see (like characters in other rooms). Dissonant Whispers does not say you have to see the creature, however, if the creature is completely out of sight wouldn't that mean it has total cover?
With total cover, that creature can't be targeted by a spell or attack but...
Dissonant Whispers says the only stipulation is the character must be able to hear you, therefore, hidden behind a barrel SHOULD still hit it but wouldn't if it's in another room? Seems like there is some DM discretion here.
To my knowledge, the only way to target a character behind total cover is to hit them with an Area of Effect spell that targets a location and not a specific creature, and even then there are restrictions and workarounds depending on the spell.
Dissonant Whispers states that the target must be able to hear. It does not state that it negates the basic rule of needing a clear path to the target.
In the spirit of the rule, this is telling you that your target can't be a deaf person, or a creature that naturally cannot perceive sound.
The idea of just shouting out loud in the battle field for all to hear but only the person you are thinking of being affected is ridiculous here. You have to see your target, so that the weave of magic has a path in which to travel.
Dissonant Whispers states that the target must be able to hear. It does not state that it negates the basic rule of needing a clear path to the target.
In the spirit of the rule, this is telling you that your target can't be a deaf person, or a creature that naturally cannot perceive sound.
The idea of just shouting out loud in the battle field for all to hear but only the person you are thinking of being affected is ridiculous here. You have to see your target, so that the weave of magic has a path in which to travel.
You don't have to see your target unless the target as defined by the spell is one "that you can see." Dissonant Whispers does not require line of sight. A clear path to the target is line of effect. This is an important distinction when it comes to blinded casters or invisible targets.
You don't have to see your target unless the target as defined by the spell is one "that you can see."
Apply this reasoning to Chill Touch, Eldritch Blast, Fire Bolt, etc, , and you will see why I disagree with your assertion and stick by my original statement.
Those spells (and many, many others) do not say "that you can see", "that can hear you", or even "that exists on this same plane of existence"... I contend that when a spell makes specific mention to those things "that you can see" or "that can hear you", that the spell is in fact adding those requirements in addition to the basic rule of spell casting, being that you "need a clear path to the target".
Of course I could be wrong. But this makes the most sense without stepping into the "ummmmmmaktually" territory that so many of us try to avoid but so many nerds love... which I'll never understand.
You are wrong. You’re allowed to Fire Bolt invisible creatures just as you’re allowed to attack them with weapons. You’re not allowed to Sacred Flame them, because Sacred Flame requires a target that you can see.
You’re contradicting yourself. You’re right that “that you can see” is in addition to “clear path to the target,” and that’s because the clear path doesn’t have anything to do with sight per se. You NEED to add “that you can see” if you want a spell to only be able to target a creature the caster can see.
The clear path to the target is, again, only line of effect, not line of sight.
You are wrong. You’re allowed to Fire Bolt invisible creatures just as you’re allowed to attack them with weapons. You’re not allowed to Sacred Flame them, because Sacred Flame requires a target that you can see.
You’re contradicting yourself. You’re right that “that you can see” is in addition to “clear path to the target,” and that’s because the clear path doesn’t have anything to do with sight per se. You NEED to add “that you can see” if you want a spell to only be able to target a creature the caster can see.
The clear path to the target is, again, only line of effect, not line of sight.
Here I was thinking "jesus christ on a ritz cracker, this dumbass isn't even trying to see what I am saying", then I went back and read what I wrote..... How the hell did my brain tell my fingers to type the opposite of what I was thinking? For several posts (our back and forth), I was under the impression that I was referring to having full cover, not full vision. Of course I know you can target invisible creatures (for instance)....
I seriously am sitting here drinking my morning coffee now trying to figure out just what in the hell I was doing! You were originally only disagreeing with my statement that "You have to see your target, so that the weave of magic has a path in which to travel.", which should have read "You need an unobstructed line to your target, so that the weave of magic has a path in which to travel."- which is what I was thinking when I typed it. Somehow thought you were disagreeing with the other part...
Sorry man. Thanks! And I'm leaving all my posts up there too, just to remind me of the dumbass I can be during those hours between beer and coffee.
But, having line of effect means the creature cannot be blocked by total cover, eh? You wouldn't have line of effect to any creature that is visible (as in able to be seen) but not in line of sight?
Or actually, what I mean to say is that having a line of effect is a condition of targeting all spells, which I think is what Urandom was trying to get to. He said line of sight, which would be identical to line of effect *if* the target is not invisible/hidden. If you are covered by total cover, you have no line of effect, even if the target can hear you.
Sorry for the necro, but in case someone is referencing this:
* To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover *unless the spell specifies otherwise, such as with Sacred Flame or Scrying*. * Most spells require you to be able to see the target - but only because the spells include that requirement in their text. * Dissonant Whispers still requires you to have a clear path to the target (meaning it can't be behind total cover), but it can target an invisible creature, you can cast it when blind, etc...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
D&D since 79. New to the Carolinas and looking for Gamers.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
My group has a bard that is hitting creatures with Dissonant Whispers that he cannot see (like characters in other rooms). Dissonant Whispers does not say you have to see the creature, however, if the creature is completely out of sight wouldn't that mean it has total cover?
With total cover, that creature can't be targeted by a spell or attack but...
Dissonant Whispers says the only stipulation is the character must be able to hear you, therefore, hidden behind a barrel SHOULD still hit it but wouldn't if it's in another room? Seems like there is some DM discretion here.
I appreciate the clarification! Thanks.
In general, this is true unless a given spell specifically says otherwise.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
To my knowledge, the only way to target a character behind total cover is to hit them with an Area of Effect spell that targets a location and not a specific creature, and even then there are restrictions and workarounds depending on the spell.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
Dissonant Whispers states that the target must be able to hear.
It does not state that it negates the basic rule of needing a clear path to the target.
In the spirit of the rule, this is telling you that your target can't be a deaf person, or a creature that naturally cannot perceive sound.
The idea of just shouting out loud in the battle field for all to hear but only the person you are thinking of being affected is ridiculous here.
You have to see your target, so that the weave of magic has a path in which to travel.
...cryptographic randomness!
You don't have to see your target unless the target as defined by the spell is one "that you can see." Dissonant Whispers does not require line of sight. A clear path to the target is line of effect. This is an important distinction when it comes to blinded casters or invisible targets.
Apply this reasoning to Chill Touch, Eldritch Blast, Fire Bolt, etc, , and you will see why I disagree with your assertion and stick by my original statement.
Those spells (and many, many others) do not say "that you can see", "that can hear you", or even "that exists on this same plane of existence"...
I contend that when a spell makes specific mention to those things "that you can see" or "that can hear you", that the spell is in fact adding those requirements in addition to the basic rule of spell casting, being that you "need a clear path to the target".
Of course I could be wrong.
But this makes the most sense without stepping into the "ummmmmmaktually" territory that so many of us try to avoid but so many nerds love... which I'll never understand.
...cryptographic randomness!
You are wrong. You’re allowed to Fire Bolt invisible creatures just as you’re allowed to attack them with weapons. You’re not allowed to Sacred Flame them, because Sacred Flame requires a target that you can see.
You’re contradicting yourself. You’re right that “that you can see” is in addition to “clear path to the target,” and that’s because the clear path doesn’t have anything to do with sight per se. You NEED to add “that you can see” if you want a spell to only be able to target a creature the caster can see.
The clear path to the target is, again, only line of effect, not line of sight.
Here I was thinking "jesus christ on a ritz cracker, this dumbass isn't even trying to see what I am saying", then I went back and read what I wrote.....
How the hell did my brain tell my fingers to type the opposite of what I was thinking?
For several posts (our back and forth), I was under the impression that I was referring to having full cover, not full vision.
Of course I know you can target invisible creatures (for instance)....
I seriously am sitting here drinking my morning coffee now trying to figure out just what in the hell I was doing!
You were originally only disagreeing with my statement that "You have to see your target, so that the weave of magic has a path in which to travel.", which should have read "You need an unobstructed line to your target, so that the weave of magic has a path in which to travel."- which is what I was thinking when I typed it.
Somehow thought you were disagreeing with the other part...
Sorry man. Thanks!
And I'm leaving all my posts up there too, just to remind me of the dumbass I can be during those hours between beer and coffee.
...cryptographic randomness!
No worries bro, glad we’re on the same page now :)
Haha!!
Thanks for the responses.
But, having line of effect means the creature cannot be blocked by total cover, eh? You wouldn't have line of effect to any creature that is visible (as in able to be seen) but not in line of sight?
Or actually, what I mean to say is that having a line of effect is a condition of targeting all spells, which I think is what Urandom was trying to get to. He said line of sight, which would be identical to line of effect *if* the target is not invisible/hidden. If you are covered by total cover, you have no line of effect, even if the target can hear you.
Sorry for the necro, but in case someone is referencing this:
* To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover *unless the spell specifies otherwise, such as with Sacred Flame or Scrying*.
* Most spells require you to be able to see the target - but only because the spells include that requirement in their text.
* Dissonant Whispers still requires you to have a clear path to the target (meaning it can't be behind total cover), but it can target an invisible creature, you can cast it when blind, etc...
D&D since 79. New to the Carolinas and looking for Gamers.