Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Xennootch 01-28-08, 06:39 PM	If I am in total concealment and someone wants to cast a ray(or ray like effect) do they have to aim at a certain square or can they fire the ray's maximum distance and hope to hit me if I am still in the line of effect?
calronmoonflower 01-28-08, 07:08 PM	Yes, sort of. A ray requires only line of effect, but you must still target a square just as you would do with a bow or such. This is covered on page 80 of the Rules Compendium if you want to look it up.
StevenO 01-29-08, 12:15 AM	They would have to target the square you are in and even then the "attack" would suffer the 50% miss chance.
Tedronai 01-29-08, 02:17 AM	Which is, frankly, and regardless of RAW, a STUPID and ABSURD abstraction. My Ray isn't going to mysteriously fail to affect a target just because they happened to be closer to me than I planned for. Ignore RAW on this one. It's stupid.
StevenO 01-29-08, 01:14 PM	Which is, frankly, and regardless of RAW, a STUPID and ABSURD abstraction. My Ray isn't going to mysteriously fail to affect a target just because they happened to be closer to me than I planned for. Ignore RAW on this one. It's stupid. That sound the same as "my arrow isn't going to miss just because the target is a little closer than I anticipated." If firing a Ray into the dark you have just as much chance to flat out miss as if you were firing an arrow into it.
Tedronai 01-29-08, 02:05 PM	That sound the same as "my arrow isn't going to miss just because the target is a little closer than I anticipated." If firing a Ray into the dark you have just as much chance to flat out miss as if you were firing an arrow into it. Arrows arc. Rays don't.
Rood_Inverse 01-29-08, 03:55 PM	A body doesn't take up 5 cubic feet of space, any more than one attack roll means you've only make one swing of your sword the whole round. The target of your ray could be ducking, leaning, or just in some awkward pose where the ray shoots right by, over his shoulder. I think it makes sense, by RAW, and by flavor.
Marcus Majarra 01-29-08, 08:36 PM	Arrows arc. Rays don't. Rays don't... based on what?
Tedronai 01-29-08, 11:11 PM	Rays don't... based on what? By the fact that they chose to use the word RAY. Look it up.
Tichrimo 01-29-08, 11:42 PM	By the fact that they chose to use the word RAY. Look it up. I looked up ray. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#rays All ray attacks require the attacker to make a successful ranged touch attack against the target. Rays have varying ranges, which are simple maximums. A ray’s attack roll never takes a range penalty. Even if a ray hits, it usually allows the target to make a saving throw (Fortitude or Will). Rays never allow a Reflex saving throw, but if a character’s Dexterity bonus to AC is high, it might be hard to hit her with the ray in the first place. Then I looked up http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm A line-shaped spell shoots away from you in a line in the direction you designate. It starts from any corner of your square and extends to the limit of its range or until it strikes a barrier that blocks line of effect. A line-shaped spell affects all creatures in squares that the line passes through. It sounds like you might have these two confused.
PenderGrass 01-30-08, 01:31 AM	Arrows arc. Rays don't. This would be fine except that most planets are roughly spherical. Which would mean at longer distances, you may have some variance in targeting difficulties especially for small, obscured targets. You would have to aim from a higher starting point with your "ray" and, therefore, a closer target could - conceivably - be missed by moving closer to you. Just saying.... :dragon: *****
Tedronai 01-30-08, 01:34 AM	This would be fine except that most planets are roughly spherical. Which would mean at longer distances, you may have some variance in targeting difficulties especially for small, obscured targets. You would have to aim from a higher starting point with your "ray" and, therefore, a closer target could - conceivably - be missed by moving closer to you. Just saying.... :dragon: ***** Sure, so long as you're epic enough to be firing rays that are capable of hitting targets a few dozen MILES away.
PenderGrass 01-30-08, 01:41 AM	Sure, so long as you're epic enough to be firing rays that are capable of hitting targets a few dozen MILES away. Try shooting a weapon, the change in the sights can mean a total miss at very short ranges. And at that point you are speaking about changing the elevation of the barrel scant millimeters (if not less). Believe me, the curvature of the Earth can effect weapon accuracy at distances of 100 yards or less. Especially when your trying to target a shifty halfling or gnome. Dismissing it so offhandedly invites overconfidence and defeat - just ask the Emperor. :dragon: *****
PenderGrass 01-30-08, 01:45 AM	I would also point out that neither rays nor line-shaped spells are specifically said to arc or not arc. Therefore, it seems likely that it is purely up to each DM to adjudicate it. Personally, I would be fine with them not arcing - but, nor wood I discount a chance of a miss regardless of target distance. In other words, a miss is always possible when dealing with an attack roll in my game. :dragon: *****
mvincent 01-30-08, 04:12 PM	My Ray isn't going to mysteriously fail to affect a target just because they happened to be closer to me than I planned for.It might if there was any incline/decline. Regardless, it's a simplification, but it means that we don't normally have to track where misses go (which is 'a good thing'). As a DM, I might still overlook this rule when a wizard shoots a ray down a long, 5' smoke-filled hallway (since this seems like a reasonable tactic)... but if there are any allies done that hallway (either before or after the foe), then they are fair game also. By the fact that they chose to use the word RAY. Look it up.Heh. Yup. Rays (by definition) are straight.
Marcus Majarra 01-30-08, 11:51 PM	Heh. Yup. Rays (by definition) are straight. I will not dispute that rays are straight for two reasons: 1) It would go against your winning THAT bet. 2) Rays are indeed straight by definition. What isn't straight, by definition, is a ray's trajectory. You see, an arrow is also straight. The shape of the arrow doesn't guarantee it a straight trajectory. I don't see why a ray, by virtue of being straight, would also follow a straight trajectory... unless the ray were to span the entire length of space between you and your target... which would turn it into a line-shaped area effect... and would then cease being a ray.
Tedronai 01-31-08, 02:51 AM	I will not dispute that rays are straight for two reasons: 1) It would go against your winning THAT bet. 2) Rays are indeed straight by definition. What isn't straight, by definition, is a ray's trajectory. You see, an arrow is also straight. The shape of the arrow doesn't guarantee it a straight trajectory. I don't see why a ray, by virtue of being straight, would also follow a straight trajectory... unless the ray were to span the entire length of space between you and your target... which would turn it into a line-shaped area effect... and would then cease being a ray. Rays are not only straight by definition, but also travel in a straight line, by the same definition (excluding the effects of gravity wells and other refractory phenomena which do not come into play over such short distances) Edit: And PenderGrass? You know what else is up to the DM to adjudicate? Whether death in any way impedes your ability to function.
PenderGrass 01-31-08, 03:33 AM	Edit: And PenderGrass? You know what else is up to the DM to adjudicate? Whether death in any way impedes your ability to function. Hey now, there is no reason to start tossing the dead into the mix. :dragon: *****
Ayzain 01-31-08, 07:05 AM	Magic and science don't mix; don't try. I would not take gravity into account, because to have gravity, you must consider mass, and now you have a thousand formulas you need to work through. Why? Well, thunderbolt would be comprised of electrons, which have a certain mass, and color spray (not a ray but bear with me) would have far less (in fact, only apparent mass, as light is made up of photons though it is acted upon by grav... anyway). Far far less, so much so that not even an entire star would change a light based spell's trajectory by even an inch per mile. So, now each form of energy has different properties reguarding mass and gravitational attraction, so charts need to be written to keep track of... no. No science mixing with magic, please. A ray is a beam of magic that goes straight because it wouldn't be a ray if it didn't - it would be an arc. That doesn't mean that it would be a guaranteed hit though. Closing your eyes and aiming at a (5x5 square, 5 feet up) 125 feet^3 space aiming at a, what, (1foot wide, 1foot thick, 5 feet tall) 5 feet^3 target would not be easy, especially if you have no way of knowing how that target was posed. AND don't forget that 125 feet^3 assumes that the target is unable to jump or in any way exceed 5 feet! Rays are straight, but as it's neigh on impossible to tell where the target is with total concealment, thus it's very unlikely that you'd hit into concealment. As ever, it's DM's descression, but at most you should have an abysmally low chance to hit. 5%? Not worth wasting the spell tbh.
darokinblade 01-31-08, 11:06 AM	Ok, I think before we got into the dispute of trajectories and angles and percentages, the root of the question was: Can a target in the path a ray that is unseen be hit with a ray? And to answer that question, it creates other implicative problems. For instance, lets say that someone is in the square just before the one that you target with your scorching ray. Since they are unseen, you are not trying to miss them, so is it possible to hit them? Well, Officially, they are considered cover, granting the original target a cover bonus to AC. They also could be struck under the Variant Rule of striking cover. Thus, you increase your original targets AC by 4 (cover bonus) and if you miss by that 4, you could have struck the cover. If your attack roll is also good enough to strike that unseen foe, then you have the 50% miss chance to overcome and boom. The spell hits. RAW says you target a square. Cover bonuses apply for foes in the way, however no core rule exists for the potential of hitting it. If a DM wants to over-rule the rules with Logic than go for it. But be prepared for other instances of that happening. For instance, What if an invisible Ally you cannot see is standing in the path of your Meteor storm. Shouldn't they have the potential of being hit? You clearly cannot see them to avoid hitting them with the spell. I think the rules were set up this way for simplicity and ease of play. If you want to add more to make it more logical, feel free. As the DM you have that right. But by definition, more rules mean the games become more complicated.
mvincent 01-31-08, 01:18 PM	I don't see why a ray, by virtue of being straight, would also follow a straight trajectory... I was simply amused by Tenderoni's reply. Given the conventional (i.e. mathematical) definition of "ray", he had a point. unless the ray were to span the entire length of space between you and your target... which would turn it into a line-shaped area effect... and would then cease being a ray.No... things like pencil thin laser beams are not area effects, even though (conventionally) such rays would make a complete line from the caster to the target. Rays/beams normally do occupy the entire space between the caster and target (even if only for an instant), but in practice they wouldn't be much different than very fast projectiles that are unaffected by gravity (since a projectile still has to travel the full path to the target anyway). Even if you view rays as Hollywood-like foot-long beam segments (which I do for some spell rays), they would still move rapidly in a straight line... no arching (i.e. they could not be significantly affected by gravity). Or can you find a ray spell that you believe could be significantly affected by gravity?
Marcus Majarra 02-02-08, 11:42 AM	To be honest, rays are ranged weapons, and should be considered as such unless stated otherwise. Gravity actually has nothing tangible to do with it. For example, rather than having the ray arc by virtue of gravity, you can have it arc by virtue of magic itself. Considering rays to be traveling in a straight trajectory leads to many problems of consistency. For example, if rays are indeed straight lines between you and your target, then every source of cover between you and your target should make hitting your target that much more difficult. I see rays as magical arrows that are propelled by magic, mechanically.
Toki_Wartooth 02-02-08, 04:14 PM	To be honest, rays are ranged weapons, and should be considered as such unless stated otherwise.Technically, D&D does not calculate ranged weapons arching at all. An archer can fire 1000 feet down a 5' x 5' hallway without violating RAW. The stipulation that you have to choose a target square is for simplicity, not to represent arching Gravity actually has nothing tangible to do with it.Gravity has everything to to with arching. Considering rays to be traveling in a straight trajectory leads to many problems of consistency.Yes. That's the point of this thread. None the less, it is what D&D does... for rays and for other ranged attacks even. How are you missing this? if rays are indeed straight lines between you and your target, then every source of cover between you and your target should make hitting your target that much more difficult.Agreed. D&D can represent this via cover, improved cover and total cover. If you could simply arch an attack over cover, then a tower shield or 6' wall couldn't really provide total cover.
Marcus Majarra 02-02-08, 08:57 PM	Gravity has everything to to with arching. You shouldn't take my sentences out of context. Gravity has nothing to do with ranged attacks unless otherwise stated. Rays are ranged attacks, and follow rules for ranged attacks. Yes. That's the point of this thread. Actually, the point of this thread was a simple question to which calronmoonflower answered. None the less, it is what D&D does... for rays and for other ranged attacks even. How are you missing this? I'm not missing this. I suggest, however, that bringing an extra dose of realism on this regard might require more work than what it's worth, if the idea is to do this consistently. Agreed. D&D can represent this via cover, improved cover and total cover. If you could simply arch an attack over cover, then a tower shield or 6' wall couldn't really provide total cover. Cover rules are funky. Especially soft cover rules. The fact that you can never hit the creature providing cover means that, at some point, you're adjusting for cover, rather than missing by virtue of your attack hitting the cover instead. Add the inability to see the object of cover, and this idea breaks down completely. Even if we look at manufactured ranged weapons from a realistic point of view and assume the trajectory is adjusted for gravity, we encounter the same problem that we have with rays, since at short ranges the arc becomes relatively insignificant. With this said, I think it's better to just disregard this issue altogether.
Ralvuimego 02-03-08, 12:22 AM	I read the title, and only one thought popped into my head. "I cast magic missile at the darkness!" But seriously. In my campaigns, all effects of magical energy that aren't manifest into an existing physical form (Such as fire) function similarly to light (I'm not a physics expert, so don't take my word for how light functions. I'm just making an example). For example, if a mage cast Disentigrate, it would project a beam that travels in a streight line over 100 feet + 10 feet per caster level. Over that distance, the magical energy contained in the beam begins to dissipate, and once it's passed beyond the spell's range, there isn't enough energy remaining in the beam to produce any effect.
Colmarr 02-08-08, 12:38 AM	Which is, frankly, and regardless of RAW, a STUPID and ABSURD abstraction. My Ray isn't going to mysteriously fail to affect a target just because they happened to be closer to me than I planned for. Ignore RAW on this one. It's stupid. Do you in your games roll to hit the first creature in the ray's path, then if it misses roll against the next target in the path, then the next etc until you either hit something or reach the ray's maximum range? If you answered no (and I highly suspect that you did), then you are not accurately representing the very type of ray you are advocating in your first reply. You're choosing to reject one abstraction but accept others. Arrows arc. Rays don't. I don't claim to be an expert on archery, but I find it extremely hard to believe that there is any noticeable trajectory in an arrow fired at a target 30ft away (the range of the Scorching Ray of 3rd level wizard). Do you allow arrows to behave like line effects at short range? If not, you are again cherry-picking your abstractions. I don't disagree with you that the ray targetting rules strike me as an "unrealistic" abstraction of how real-world rays work, but IMO you must either accept the abstraction and move on or you need to justify why you accept or reject each abstraction in the game. On a different but related note, you are effectively arguing for rays to be line effects that end once they hit a target. Which in itself is an interesting concept, but it's not a RAW D&D ray.
Fitz10019 02-21-08, 11:28 AM	Arrows arc. Rays don't. *dusting off dead thread* I just noticed something that reminded me of this discussion. Sometimes artwork can come in handy. Check out the PHB, 92-93, where Lidda is dodging a ray. That ray isn't straight, not even during the first foot as it leaves the cleric's hand. To the rays-are-straight crowd: Never bring physics to a magic discussion.
mvincent 02-21-08, 12:52 PM	Check out the PHB, 92-93, where Lidda is dodging a ray.Heh... that ray (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/ph35_gallery/PHB35_PG92a_WEB.jpg) looks pretty darn electrical, and electricity is known for 'arcing' I guess. I have no idea what the original artist's intent was (wasn't that picture around before the 3.5 PHB?)... but viewing magic 'rays' as a jagged line (like a lightning bolt) or somesuch seems reasonable enough. Thank you for the example.