Questions on the Deceptive Spell metamagic feat [Archive] - Wizards Community

Questions on the Deceptive Spell metamagic feat [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
RavingDork
03-16-07, 10:49 AM The metamagic feat, Deceptive Spell, from the Cityscape supplament says you can change a spell's point of origin in order to better conceal the fact that you are casting the spell.

For example, you could have a magic missile shoot from a nearby doorway or have a lightning bolt shoot out of the ground rather than from your fingertips.

The spell also says you cannot use this feat to gain a numerical or mechanical advantage to attack rolls, such as by avoiding cover.

My question is, if I cast Scorching Ray at a foe behind a low wall, and I have the ray blast forth from the doorway BEHIND my enemey, how on earth does the low wall still protect him?

I assume all other spell conditions must be met as normal for the spell (therefore, both the doorway and the foe in the above example would need to be within range of my character).

Also, the feat's limitations only seem to apply to attack rolls. If I were to blast the enemy as shown above, except I used a cone-shaped burst spell instead, the low wall would provide absolutely no benefit whatsoever to his Reflex save. Why is that? :confused:
tarkin
03-16-07, 11:21 AM When the spell says "cannot use this feat to gain a numerical or mechanical advantage to attack rolls, such as by avoiding cover"

It means that it is illegal for you to have the ray blast forth from the doorway BEHIND my enemey. I.E. You are not allowed to do the thing you think you can do. You thought it said "can not receive a numerical benefit", in which case, the logical problem you describe would exist.

But because it says you can not USE this feat, that means there are certain things that if you attempt to do, will fail. You described one of them.

As to why it can be used to negate bonuses to saves, but not to attacks, that is another question.

Here are things people might say:

1. Interpret it "attack rolls" to include saves.

2. It is just a nature of the spell, it is more powerfull for save based spells than for attack based spells.
RavingDork
03-16-07, 11:58 AM When the spell says "cannot use this feat to gain a numerical or mechanical advantage to attack rolls, such as by avoiding cover"

It means that it is illegal for you to have the ray blast forth from the doorway BEHIND my enemey. I.E. You are not allowed to do the thing you think you can do. You thought it said "can not receive a numerical benefit", in which case, the logical problem you describe would exist.

But because it says you can not USE this feat, that means there are certain things that if you attempt to do, will fail. You described one of them.

As to why it can be used to negate bonuses to saves, but not to attacks, that is another question.

Here are things people might say:

1. Interpret it "attack rolls" to include saves.

2. It is just a nature of the spell, it is more powerfull for save based spells than for attack based spells.

It appears that you are correct, however, that makes for a very arbitrary and awkward feat.

Anyone else have any other views as to how this feat works?

EDIT: Could I use this spell to make cones and line effects effectively cylindars by changing their orientation (such as to strike both a grounded foe and a flying foe at once)? The purpose of the feat seems to be to change the spell's point of origin in order to disguise it source (so long as "you do not gain a bonus to hit, circumvent cover, flank, or in any other way gain a numeric or mechanical advantage on any attack rolls").

For example, I am faced with two foes, one 20 feet directly ahead of me and another 40 feet away standing on a 50-foot high ledge (effectively making him ~65 feet away). I choose to have my lightning bolt appear in front of the elevated foe and reach down to strike the level foe in order to cause confusion...or else I just have it strike both foes (something I would not be able to do from my position without this feat).
cwslyclgh
03-16-07, 12:04 PM I am not going to dissagree with Tarkin, I perosnaly would do it like he suggests, but if you wanted to allow it here is how I would justify it.

I would say that the if the guy is hiding behind a low wall, and has cover from you, you can't see him very well (or I should say you can see him fine, but only part of him), and as you have to aim the rays, even if they come from behind him you would get the penalty because you can't see exactly where you are aiming (I know it would be more realistic to translate the cover into some sort of concealment, but just leaving it the cover bonus to ac is quicker and easier).
RavingDork
03-16-07, 12:15 PM I am not going to dissagree with Tarkin, I perosnaly would do it like he suggests, but if you wanted to allow it here is how I would justify it.

I would say that the if the guy is hiding behind a low wall, and has cover from you, you can't see him very well (or I should say you can see him fine, but only part of him), and as you have to aim the rays, even if they come from behind him you would get the penalty because you can't see exactly where you are aiming (I know it would be more realistic to translate the cover into some sort of concealment, but just leaving it the cover bonus to ac is quicker and easier).

That was my initial thought on the matter as well.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
RavingDork 03-16-07, 10:49 AM	The metamagic feat, Deceptive Spell, from the Cityscape supplament says you can change a spell's point of origin in order to better conceal the fact that you are casting the spell. For example, you could have a magic missile shoot from a nearby doorway or have a lightning bolt shoot out of the ground rather than from your fingertips. The spell also says you cannot use this feat to gain a numerical or mechanical advantage to attack rolls, such as by avoiding cover. My question is, if I cast Scorching Ray at a foe behind a low wall, and I have the ray blast forth from the doorway BEHIND my enemey, how on earth does the low wall still protect him? I assume all other spell conditions must be met as normal for the spell (therefore, both the doorway and the foe in the above example would need to be within range of my character). Also, the feat's limitations only seem to apply to attack rolls. If I were to blast the enemy as shown above, except I used a cone-shaped burst spell instead, the low wall would provide absolutely no benefit whatsoever to his Reflex save. Why is that? :confused:
tarkin 03-16-07, 11:21 AM	When the spell says "cannot use this feat to gain a numerical or mechanical advantage to attack rolls, such as by avoiding cover" It means that it is illegal for you to have the ray blast forth from the doorway BEHIND my enemey. I.E. You are not allowed to do the thing you think you can do. You thought it said "can not receive a numerical benefit", in which case, the logical problem you describe would exist. But because it says you can not USE this feat, that means there are certain things that if you attempt to do, will fail. You described one of them. As to why it can be used to negate bonuses to saves, but not to attacks, that is another question. Here are things people might say: 1. Interpret it "attack rolls" to include saves. 2. It is just a nature of the spell, it is more powerfull for save based spells than for attack based spells.
RavingDork 03-16-07, 11:58 AM	When the spell says "cannot use this feat to gain a numerical or mechanical advantage to attack rolls, such as by avoiding cover" It means that it is illegal for you to have the ray blast forth from the doorway BEHIND my enemey. I.E. You are not allowed to do the thing you think you can do. You thought it said "can not receive a numerical benefit", in which case, the logical problem you describe would exist. But because it says you can not USE this feat, that means there are certain things that if you attempt to do, will fail. You described one of them. As to why it can be used to negate bonuses to saves, but not to attacks, that is another question. Here are things people might say: 1. Interpret it "attack rolls" to include saves. 2. It is just a nature of the spell, it is more powerfull for save based spells than for attack based spells. It appears that you are correct, however, that makes for a very arbitrary and awkward feat. Anyone else have any other views as to how this feat works? EDIT: Could I use this spell to make cones and line effects effectively cylindars by changing their orientation (such as to strike both a grounded foe and a flying foe at once)? The purpose of the feat seems to be to change the spell's point of origin in order to disguise it source (so long as "you do not gain a bonus to hit, circumvent cover, flank, or in any other way gain a numeric or mechanical advantage on any attack rolls"). For example, I am faced with two foes, one 20 feet directly ahead of me and another 40 feet away standing on a 50-foot high ledge (effectively making him ~65 feet away). I choose to have my lightning bolt appear in front of the elevated foe and reach down to strike the level foe in order to cause confusion...or else I just have it strike both foes (something I would not be able to do from my position without this feat).
cwslyclgh 03-16-07, 12:04 PM	I am not going to dissagree with Tarkin, I perosnaly would do it like he suggests, but if you wanted to allow it here is how I would justify it. I would say that the if the guy is hiding behind a low wall, and has cover from you, you can't see him very well (or I should say you can see him fine, but only part of him), and as you have to aim the rays, even if they come from behind him you would get the penalty because you can't see exactly where you are aiming (I know it would be more realistic to translate the cover into some sort of concealment, but just leaving it the cover bonus to ac is quicker and easier).
RavingDork 03-16-07, 12:15 PM	I am not going to dissagree with Tarkin, I perosnaly would do it like he suggests, but if you wanted to allow it here is how I would justify it. I would say that the if the guy is hiding behind a low wall, and has cover from you, you can't see him very well (or I should say you can see him fine, but only part of him), and as you have to aim the rays, even if they come from behind him you would get the penalty because you can't see exactly where you are aiming (I know it would be more realistic to translate the cover into some sort of concealment, but just leaving it the cover bonus to ac is quicker and easier). That was my initial thought on the matter as well.