What happens when you try to target a creature with fire bolt but there is an invisible creature in between?












18














| Y | - | C | - | T |



Y = You

C = Invisible Creature

T = Target



What happens if you cast a firebolt on an enemy but in the line of sight between you and your target there is an invisible creature you know/don't know about?






dnd-5e spells invisibility targeting







share|improve this question




















  • 3




    @fabian we don't use code blocks for anything except code here, not even to make formatting look nicer. See this Meta for the reasons behind it.
    – Rubiksmoose
    Nov 15 '18 at 14:54
















18














| Y | - | C | - | T |



Y = You

C = Invisible Creature

T = Target



What happens if you cast a firebolt on an enemy but in the line of sight between you and your target there is an invisible creature you know/don't know about?






dnd-5e spells invisibility targeting







share|improve this question




















  • 3




    @fabian we don't use code blocks for anything except code here, not even to make formatting look nicer. See this Meta for the reasons behind it.
    – Rubiksmoose
    Nov 15 '18 at 14:54














18












18








18


1





| Y | - | C | - | T |



Y = You

C = Invisible Creature

T = Target



What happens if you cast a firebolt on an enemy but in the line of sight between you and your target there is an invisible creature you know/don't know about?






dnd-5e spells invisibility targeting







share|improve this question















| Y | - | C | - | T |



Y = You

C = Invisible Creature

T = Target



What happens if you cast a firebolt on an enemy but in the line of sight between you and your target there is an invisible creature you know/don't know about?






dnd-5e spells invisibility targeting




dnd-5e spells invisibility targeting






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Nov 15 '18 at 15:32









Rubiksmoose

49.5k6245374




49.5k6245374










asked Nov 15 '18 at 14:16









FoffosFoffos

430214




430214








  • 3




    @fabian we don't use code blocks for anything except code here, not even to make formatting look nicer. See this Meta for the reasons behind it.
    – Rubiksmoose
    Nov 15 '18 at 14:54














  • 3




    @fabian we don't use code blocks for anything except code here, not even to make formatting look nicer. See this Meta for the reasons behind it.
    – Rubiksmoose
    Nov 15 '18 at 14:54








3




3




@fabian we don't use code blocks for anything except code here, not even to make formatting look nicer. See this Meta for the reasons behind it.
– Rubiksmoose
Nov 15 '18 at 14:54




@fabian we don't use code blocks for anything except code here, not even to make formatting look nicer. See this Meta for the reasons behind it.
– Rubiksmoose
Nov 15 '18 at 14:54










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















18














Invisibility doesn't affect the cover rules (and neither does (not) knowing the creature is there)



Anything that is an obstacle can provide cover for a creature. All that matters for the sake of the rules is that that thing can physically interrupt the path of whatever is trying to cross through it. A creature, invisible or not, can provide cover against spells (which require an uninterrupted line from the source to the target).



Normally, a creature counts as half cover:




A target with half cover has a +2 bonus to AC and Dexterity saving
throws. A target has half cover if an obstacle blocks at least half of
its body. The obstacle might be [...] a creature, whether that
creature is an enemy or a friend.




If the creature is large enough a DM might rule that they provide Three-Quarters cover or even Total cover, but the default for a creature is half cover.



Let's assume that the invisible creature gives half cover in your example. That means that if you cast fire bolt with an invisible creature between you, the target creature (not the invisible one) will get a +2 bonus to its AC, making it that much harder for your spell to hit it.



Unless the creature is providing full cover to the intended target (see next section) nothing about spell targeting or line of sight is changed.



The fact that you do or do not know about the creature has no bearing on the matter. Your DM will know and will adjust the results accordingly.



By the default rules, the creature providing cover does not get hit in any case.



Special case: full cover



If your DM rules that the creature provides full cover against the target, then you will not be able to cast your spell. To target something with a spell you must have a clear path:




To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover.




So, in the rare case that the creature in your example is providing full cover to the intended target (meaning it is covering them entirely), your fire bolt will simply fail to cast.



If your DM is using the optional rule for invalid spell target from Xanathar's Guide to Everything, they may rule that attempting to cast this spell would still burn the spell slot.




If you cast a spell on someone or something that can’t be affected by
the spell, nothing happens to that target, but if you used a spell
slot to cast the spell, the slot is still expended.




Otherwise, the rules are unclear if it would or if you simply would be unable to cast it.



Optional rule: hitting cover



There is an optional rule that your table can use that simulates the chance to hit the covering creature.




If a creature is providing cover for the missed creature and the attack roll exceeds the AC of the covering creature, the covering creature is hit.







share|improve this answer



















  • 3




    Doesn't xanathar have a rule that says something about not having a valid target causes the spell to cast but nothing happens or would this not apply
    – Jihelu
    Nov 15 '18 at 16:33








  • 1




    @Jihelu good suggestion! I added a bit about that.
    – Rubiksmoose
    Nov 15 '18 at 16:41






  • 1




    Invalid spell target or not using the hitting cover rule sure makes mass invisibility of a crowd of screening minions an interesting wrinkle for magic users in a battle setting. If both were used together it would be a no brainer for a big baddie with the spell power and the man power.
    – Myles
    Nov 15 '18 at 22:16



















6














According to the cover rules, the target can have cover for being behind a creature. The DM decides how much cover depending on the size of the creatures and maybe other factors. Then you can use the optional rule for hitting cover to decide if you hit cover (from the DMG on page 272):




If a creature is providing cover for the missed creature and the attack roll exceeds the AC of the covering creature, the covering creature is hit.




Without the optional rule, there's no provision for hitting the covering creature, though it still provides cover.



There's a similar answer here: When creatures provide cover against attacks, can they be hit?






share|improve this answer



















  • 4




    Might be worth mentioning that the "Hitting Cover" optional rule is in the DMG.
    – Slagmoth
    Nov 15 '18 at 14:38












  • So, using this base, if i know there is a creature inside a darkness spell, a melee attack have to guess the location, but what about a ranged attack made by trying to cast for example your firebolt trought the darkness, covering not a single space but a line? Is this right or i have to guess the location for ranged attacks for a single space too?
    – Foffos
    Nov 15 '18 at 14:44






  • 2




    @Foffos If you don't use this variant rule, it's not going to be helpful in determining your answer. If you do use it (or don't!), that'd be good to add to your question.
    – NautArch
    Nov 15 '18 at 14:49






  • 1




    This all looks correct, but feels wrong. This theoretically makes it much easier to hit an invisible creature.
    – goodguy5
    Nov 15 '18 at 15:16






  • 1




    @goodguy5 You still need to beat their AC, while not beating the AC of the covered creature.
    – bvstuart
    Nov 15 '18 at 15:54











Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "122"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f135615%2fwhat-happens-when-you-try-to-target-a-creature-with-fire-bolt-but-there-is-an-in%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









18














Invisibility doesn't affect the cover rules (and neither does (not) knowing the creature is there)



Anything that is an obstacle can provide cover for a creature. All that matters for the sake of the rules is that that thing can physically interrupt the path of whatever is trying to cross through it. A creature, invisible or not, can provide cover against spells (which require an uninterrupted line from the source to the target).



Normally, a creature counts as half cover:




A target with half cover has a +2 bonus to AC and Dexterity saving
throws. A target has half cover if an obstacle blocks at least half of
its body. The obstacle might be [...] a creature, whether that
creature is an enemy or a friend.




If the creature is large enough a DM might rule that they provide Three-Quarters cover or even Total cover, but the default for a creature is half cover.



Let's assume that the invisible creature gives half cover in your example. That means that if you cast fire bolt with an invisible creature between you, the target creature (not the invisible one) will get a +2 bonus to its AC, making it that much harder for your spell to hit it.



Unless the creature is providing full cover to the intended target (see next section) nothing about spell targeting or line of sight is changed.



The fact that you do or do not know about the creature has no bearing on the matter. Your DM will know and will adjust the results accordingly.



By the default rules, the creature providing cover does not get hit in any case.



Special case: full cover



If your DM rules that the creature provides full cover against the target, then you will not be able to cast your spell. To target something with a spell you must have a clear path:




To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover.




So, in the rare case that the creature in your example is providing full cover to the intended target (meaning it is covering them entirely), your fire bolt will simply fail to cast.



If your DM is using the optional rule for invalid spell target from Xanathar's Guide to Everything, they may rule that attempting to cast this spell would still burn the spell slot.




If you cast a spell on someone or something that can’t be affected by
the spell, nothing happens to that target, but if you used a spell
slot to cast the spell, the slot is still expended.




Otherwise, the rules are unclear if it would or if you simply would be unable to cast it.



Optional rule: hitting cover



There is an optional rule that your table can use that simulates the chance to hit the covering creature.




If a creature is providing cover for the missed creature and the attack roll exceeds the AC of the covering creature, the covering creature is hit.







share|improve this answer



















  • 3




    Doesn't xanathar have a rule that says something about not having a valid target causes the spell to cast but nothing happens or would this not apply
    – Jihelu
    Nov 15 '18 at 16:33








  • 1




    @Jihelu good suggestion! I added a bit about that.
    – Rubiksmoose
    Nov 15 '18 at 16:41






  • 1




    Invalid spell target or not using the hitting cover rule sure makes mass invisibility of a crowd of screening minions an interesting wrinkle for magic users in a battle setting. If both were used together it would be a no brainer for a big baddie with the spell power and the man power.
    – Myles
    Nov 15 '18 at 22:16
















18














Invisibility doesn't affect the cover rules (and neither does (not) knowing the creature is there)



Anything that is an obstacle can provide cover for a creature. All that matters for the sake of the rules is that that thing can physically interrupt the path of whatever is trying to cross through it. A creature, invisible or not, can provide cover against spells (which require an uninterrupted line from the source to the target).



Normally, a creature counts as half cover:




A target with half cover has a +2 bonus to AC and Dexterity saving
throws. A target has half cover if an obstacle blocks at least half of
its body. The obstacle might be [...] a creature, whether that
creature is an enemy or a friend.




If the creature is large enough a DM might rule that they provide Three-Quarters cover or even Total cover, but the default for a creature is half cover.



Let's assume that the invisible creature gives half cover in your example. That means that if you cast fire bolt with an invisible creature between you, the target creature (not the invisible one) will get a +2 bonus to its AC, making it that much harder for your spell to hit it.



Unless the creature is providing full cover to the intended target (see next section) nothing about spell targeting or line of sight is changed.



The fact that you do or do not know about the creature has no bearing on the matter. Your DM will know and will adjust the results accordingly.



By the default rules, the creature providing cover does not get hit in any case.



Special case: full cover



If your DM rules that the creature provides full cover against the target, then you will not be able to cast your spell. To target something with a spell you must have a clear path:




To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover.




So, in the rare case that the creature in your example is providing full cover to the intended target (meaning it is covering them entirely), your fire bolt will simply fail to cast.



If your DM is using the optional rule for invalid spell target from Xanathar's Guide to Everything, they may rule that attempting to cast this spell would still burn the spell slot.




If you cast a spell on someone or something that can’t be affected by
the spell, nothing happens to that target, but if you used a spell
slot to cast the spell, the slot is still expended.




Otherwise, the rules are unclear if it would or if you simply would be unable to cast it.



Optional rule: hitting cover



There is an optional rule that your table can use that simulates the chance to hit the covering creature.




If a creature is providing cover for the missed creature and the attack roll exceeds the AC of the covering creature, the covering creature is hit.







share|improve this answer



















  • 3




    Doesn't xanathar have a rule that says something about not having a valid target causes the spell to cast but nothing happens or would this not apply
    – Jihelu
    Nov 15 '18 at 16:33








  • 1




    @Jihelu good suggestion! I added a bit about that.
    – Rubiksmoose
    Nov 15 '18 at 16:41






  • 1




    Invalid spell target or not using the hitting cover rule sure makes mass invisibility of a crowd of screening minions an interesting wrinkle for magic users in a battle setting. If both were used together it would be a no brainer for a big baddie with the spell power and the man power.
    – Myles
    Nov 15 '18 at 22:16














18












18








18






Invisibility doesn't affect the cover rules (and neither does (not) knowing the creature is there)



Anything that is an obstacle can provide cover for a creature. All that matters for the sake of the rules is that that thing can physically interrupt the path of whatever is trying to cross through it. A creature, invisible or not, can provide cover against spells (which require an uninterrupted line from the source to the target).



Normally, a creature counts as half cover:




A target with half cover has a +2 bonus to AC and Dexterity saving
throws. A target has half cover if an obstacle blocks at least half of
its body. The obstacle might be [...] a creature, whether that
creature is an enemy or a friend.




If the creature is large enough a DM might rule that they provide Three-Quarters cover or even Total cover, but the default for a creature is half cover.



Let's assume that the invisible creature gives half cover in your example. That means that if you cast fire bolt with an invisible creature between you, the target creature (not the invisible one) will get a +2 bonus to its AC, making it that much harder for your spell to hit it.



Unless the creature is providing full cover to the intended target (see next section) nothing about spell targeting or line of sight is changed.



The fact that you do or do not know about the creature has no bearing on the matter. Your DM will know and will adjust the results accordingly.



By the default rules, the creature providing cover does not get hit in any case.



Special case: full cover



If your DM rules that the creature provides full cover against the target, then you will not be able to cast your spell. To target something with a spell you must have a clear path:




To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover.




So, in the rare case that the creature in your example is providing full cover to the intended target (meaning it is covering them entirely), your fire bolt will simply fail to cast.



If your DM is using the optional rule for invalid spell target from Xanathar's Guide to Everything, they may rule that attempting to cast this spell would still burn the spell slot.




If you cast a spell on someone or something that can’t be affected by
the spell, nothing happens to that target, but if you used a spell
slot to cast the spell, the slot is still expended.




Otherwise, the rules are unclear if it would or if you simply would be unable to cast it.



Optional rule: hitting cover



There is an optional rule that your table can use that simulates the chance to hit the covering creature.




If a creature is providing cover for the missed creature and the attack roll exceeds the AC of the covering creature, the covering creature is hit.







share|improve this answer














Invisibility doesn't affect the cover rules (and neither does (not) knowing the creature is there)



Anything that is an obstacle can provide cover for a creature. All that matters for the sake of the rules is that that thing can physically interrupt the path of whatever is trying to cross through it. A creature, invisible or not, can provide cover against spells (which require an uninterrupted line from the source to the target).



Normally, a creature counts as half cover:




A target with half cover has a +2 bonus to AC and Dexterity saving
throws. A target has half cover if an obstacle blocks at least half of
its body. The obstacle might be [...] a creature, whether that
creature is an enemy or a friend.




If the creature is large enough a DM might rule that they provide Three-Quarters cover or even Total cover, but the default for a creature is half cover.



Let's assume that the invisible creature gives half cover in your example. That means that if you cast fire bolt with an invisible creature between you, the target creature (not the invisible one) will get a +2 bonus to its AC, making it that much harder for your spell to hit it.



Unless the creature is providing full cover to the intended target (see next section) nothing about spell targeting or line of sight is changed.



The fact that you do or do not know about the creature has no bearing on the matter. Your DM will know and will adjust the results accordingly.



By the default rules, the creature providing cover does not get hit in any case.



Special case: full cover



If your DM rules that the creature provides full cover against the target, then you will not be able to cast your spell. To target something with a spell you must have a clear path:




To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover.




So, in the rare case that the creature in your example is providing full cover to the intended target (meaning it is covering them entirely), your fire bolt will simply fail to cast.



If your DM is using the optional rule for invalid spell target from Xanathar's Guide to Everything, they may rule that attempting to cast this spell would still burn the spell slot.




If you cast a spell on someone or something that can’t be affected by
the spell, nothing happens to that target, but if you used a spell
slot to cast the spell, the slot is still expended.




Otherwise, the rules are unclear if it would or if you simply would be unable to cast it.



Optional rule: hitting cover



There is an optional rule that your table can use that simulates the chance to hit the covering creature.




If a creature is providing cover for the missed creature and the attack roll exceeds the AC of the covering creature, the covering creature is hit.








share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Nov 15 '18 at 17:49

























answered Nov 15 '18 at 15:15









RubiksmooseRubiksmoose

49.5k6245374




49.5k6245374








  • 3




    Doesn't xanathar have a rule that says something about not having a valid target causes the spell to cast but nothing happens or would this not apply
    – Jihelu
    Nov 15 '18 at 16:33








  • 1




    @Jihelu good suggestion! I added a bit about that.
    – Rubiksmoose
    Nov 15 '18 at 16:41






  • 1




    Invalid spell target or not using the hitting cover rule sure makes mass invisibility of a crowd of screening minions an interesting wrinkle for magic users in a battle setting. If both were used together it would be a no brainer for a big baddie with the spell power and the man power.
    – Myles
    Nov 15 '18 at 22:16














  • 3




    Doesn't xanathar have a rule that says something about not having a valid target causes the spell to cast but nothing happens or would this not apply
    – Jihelu
    Nov 15 '18 at 16:33








  • 1




    @Jihelu good suggestion! I added a bit about that.
    – Rubiksmoose
    Nov 15 '18 at 16:41






  • 1




    Invalid spell target or not using the hitting cover rule sure makes mass invisibility of a crowd of screening minions an interesting wrinkle for magic users in a battle setting. If both were used together it would be a no brainer for a big baddie with the spell power and the man power.
    – Myles
    Nov 15 '18 at 22:16








3




3




Doesn't xanathar have a rule that says something about not having a valid target causes the spell to cast but nothing happens or would this not apply
– Jihelu
Nov 15 '18 at 16:33






Doesn't xanathar have a rule that says something about not having a valid target causes the spell to cast but nothing happens or would this not apply
– Jihelu
Nov 15 '18 at 16:33






1




1




@Jihelu good suggestion! I added a bit about that.
– Rubiksmoose
Nov 15 '18 at 16:41




@Jihelu good suggestion! I added a bit about that.
– Rubiksmoose
Nov 15 '18 at 16:41




1




1




Invalid spell target or not using the hitting cover rule sure makes mass invisibility of a crowd of screening minions an interesting wrinkle for magic users in a battle setting. If both were used together it would be a no brainer for a big baddie with the spell power and the man power.
– Myles
Nov 15 '18 at 22:16




Invalid spell target or not using the hitting cover rule sure makes mass invisibility of a crowd of screening minions an interesting wrinkle for magic users in a battle setting. If both were used together it would be a no brainer for a big baddie with the spell power and the man power.
– Myles
Nov 15 '18 at 22:16













6














According to the cover rules, the target can have cover for being behind a creature. The DM decides how much cover depending on the size of the creatures and maybe other factors. Then you can use the optional rule for hitting cover to decide if you hit cover (from the DMG on page 272):




If a creature is providing cover for the missed creature and the attack roll exceeds the AC of the covering creature, the covering creature is hit.




Without the optional rule, there's no provision for hitting the covering creature, though it still provides cover.



There's a similar answer here: When creatures provide cover against attacks, can they be hit?






share|improve this answer



















  • 4




    Might be worth mentioning that the "Hitting Cover" optional rule is in the DMG.
    – Slagmoth
    Nov 15 '18 at 14:38












  • So, using this base, if i know there is a creature inside a darkness spell, a melee attack have to guess the location, but what about a ranged attack made by trying to cast for example your firebolt trought the darkness, covering not a single space but a line? Is this right or i have to guess the location for ranged attacks for a single space too?
    – Foffos
    Nov 15 '18 at 14:44






  • 2




    @Foffos If you don't use this variant rule, it's not going to be helpful in determining your answer. If you do use it (or don't!), that'd be good to add to your question.
    – NautArch
    Nov 15 '18 at 14:49






  • 1




    This all looks correct, but feels wrong. This theoretically makes it much easier to hit an invisible creature.
    – goodguy5
    Nov 15 '18 at 15:16






  • 1




    @goodguy5 You still need to beat their AC, while not beating the AC of the covered creature.
    – bvstuart
    Nov 15 '18 at 15:54
















6














According to the cover rules, the target can have cover for being behind a creature. The DM decides how much cover depending on the size of the creatures and maybe other factors. Then you can use the optional rule for hitting cover to decide if you hit cover (from the DMG on page 272):




If a creature is providing cover for the missed creature and the attack roll exceeds the AC of the covering creature, the covering creature is hit.




Without the optional rule, there's no provision for hitting the covering creature, though it still provides cover.



There's a similar answer here: When creatures provide cover against attacks, can they be hit?






share|improve this answer



















  • 4




    Might be worth mentioning that the "Hitting Cover" optional rule is in the DMG.
    – Slagmoth
    Nov 15 '18 at 14:38












  • So, using this base, if i know there is a creature inside a darkness spell, a melee attack have to guess the location, but what about a ranged attack made by trying to cast for example your firebolt trought the darkness, covering not a single space but a line? Is this right or i have to guess the location for ranged attacks for a single space too?
    – Foffos
    Nov 15 '18 at 14:44






  • 2




    @Foffos If you don't use this variant rule, it's not going to be helpful in determining your answer. If you do use it (or don't!), that'd be good to add to your question.
    – NautArch
    Nov 15 '18 at 14:49






  • 1




    This all looks correct, but feels wrong. This theoretically makes it much easier to hit an invisible creature.
    – goodguy5
    Nov 15 '18 at 15:16






  • 1




    @goodguy5 You still need to beat their AC, while not beating the AC of the covered creature.
    – bvstuart
    Nov 15 '18 at 15:54














6












6








6






According to the cover rules, the target can have cover for being behind a creature. The DM decides how much cover depending on the size of the creatures and maybe other factors. Then you can use the optional rule for hitting cover to decide if you hit cover (from the DMG on page 272):




If a creature is providing cover for the missed creature and the attack roll exceeds the AC of the covering creature, the covering creature is hit.




Without the optional rule, there's no provision for hitting the covering creature, though it still provides cover.



There's a similar answer here: When creatures provide cover against attacks, can they be hit?






share|improve this answer














According to the cover rules, the target can have cover for being behind a creature. The DM decides how much cover depending on the size of the creatures and maybe other factors. Then you can use the optional rule for hitting cover to decide if you hit cover (from the DMG on page 272):




If a creature is providing cover for the missed creature and the attack roll exceeds the AC of the covering creature, the covering creature is hit.




Without the optional rule, there's no provision for hitting the covering creature, though it still provides cover.



There's a similar answer here: When creatures provide cover against attacks, can they be hit?







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Nov 15 '18 at 14:57

























answered Nov 15 '18 at 14:29









bvstuartbvstuart

1,063310




1,063310








  • 4




    Might be worth mentioning that the "Hitting Cover" optional rule is in the DMG.
    – Slagmoth
    Nov 15 '18 at 14:38












  • So, using this base, if i know there is a creature inside a darkness spell, a melee attack have to guess the location, but what about a ranged attack made by trying to cast for example your firebolt trought the darkness, covering not a single space but a line? Is this right or i have to guess the location for ranged attacks for a single space too?
    – Foffos
    Nov 15 '18 at 14:44






  • 2




    @Foffos If you don't use this variant rule, it's not going to be helpful in determining your answer. If you do use it (or don't!), that'd be good to add to your question.
    – NautArch
    Nov 15 '18 at 14:49






  • 1




    This all looks correct, but feels wrong. This theoretically makes it much easier to hit an invisible creature.
    – goodguy5
    Nov 15 '18 at 15:16






  • 1




    @goodguy5 You still need to beat their AC, while not beating the AC of the covered creature.
    – bvstuart
    Nov 15 '18 at 15:54














  • 4




    Might be worth mentioning that the "Hitting Cover" optional rule is in the DMG.
    – Slagmoth
    Nov 15 '18 at 14:38












  • So, using this base, if i know there is a creature inside a darkness spell, a melee attack have to guess the location, but what about a ranged attack made by trying to cast for example your firebolt trought the darkness, covering not a single space but a line? Is this right or i have to guess the location for ranged attacks for a single space too?
    – Foffos
    Nov 15 '18 at 14:44






  • 2




    @Foffos If you don't use this variant rule, it's not going to be helpful in determining your answer. If you do use it (or don't!), that'd be good to add to your question.
    – NautArch
    Nov 15 '18 at 14:49






  • 1




    This all looks correct, but feels wrong. This theoretically makes it much easier to hit an invisible creature.
    – goodguy5
    Nov 15 '18 at 15:16






  • 1




    @goodguy5 You still need to beat their AC, while not beating the AC of the covered creature.
    – bvstuart
    Nov 15 '18 at 15:54








4




4




Might be worth mentioning that the "Hitting Cover" optional rule is in the DMG.
– Slagmoth
Nov 15 '18 at 14:38






Might be worth mentioning that the "Hitting Cover" optional rule is in the DMG.
– Slagmoth
Nov 15 '18 at 14:38














So, using this base, if i know there is a creature inside a darkness spell, a melee attack have to guess the location, but what about a ranged attack made by trying to cast for example your firebolt trought the darkness, covering not a single space but a line? Is this right or i have to guess the location for ranged attacks for a single space too?
– Foffos
Nov 15 '18 at 14:44




So, using this base, if i know there is a creature inside a darkness spell, a melee attack have to guess the location, but what about a ranged attack made by trying to cast for example your firebolt trought the darkness, covering not a single space but a line? Is this right or i have to guess the location for ranged attacks for a single space too?
– Foffos
Nov 15 '18 at 14:44




2




2




@Foffos If you don't use this variant rule, it's not going to be helpful in determining your answer. If you do use it (or don't!), that'd be good to add to your question.
– NautArch
Nov 15 '18 at 14:49




@Foffos If you don't use this variant rule, it's not going to be helpful in determining your answer. If you do use it (or don't!), that'd be good to add to your question.
– NautArch
Nov 15 '18 at 14:49




1




1




This all looks correct, but feels wrong. This theoretically makes it much easier to hit an invisible creature.
– goodguy5
Nov 15 '18 at 15:16




This all looks correct, but feels wrong. This theoretically makes it much easier to hit an invisible creature.
– goodguy5
Nov 15 '18 at 15:16




1




1




@goodguy5 You still need to beat their AC, while not beating the AC of the covered creature.
– bvstuart
Nov 15 '18 at 15:54




@goodguy5 You still need to beat their AC, while not beating the AC of the covered creature.
– bvstuart
Nov 15 '18 at 15:54


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Role-playing Games Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f135615%2fwhat-happens-when-you-try-to-target-a-creature-with-fire-bolt-but-there-is-an-in%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







-

Popular posts from this blog

Guess what letter conforming each word

Image
6 $begingroup$ This is an entry in the Fortnightly Topic Challenge #41: Short and Sweet. 1 letter only could be mean anything . With an additional letter in front , could be used as medicine component and something you definitely learn or at least heard once. Add another letter in front , you would possibly hear that many times . Add an additional letter in front , you would found an independent country . With an additional letter, in the end , you would found something related to apple . Add another letter in the end , you would found something bad . Hint: Each letter is unique . word knowledge letters chemistry share | improve this question ...
Read more

Port of Spain

Image
For ports in the country of Spain, see List of ports in Spain. City in City of Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago Port of Spain City City of Port of Spain Top to bottom (left to right): Skyline of Port of Spain from Gulf of Paria; National Academy for the Performing Arts, Independence Square, Eric Williams Plaza; MovieTowne, Port of Port of Spain Motto(s):  "We Gather Strength As We Go Along" Port of Spain Coordinates: 10°40′N 61°31′W  /  10.667°N 61.517°W  / 10.667; -61.517 Coordinates: 10°40′N 61°31′W  /  10.667°N 61.517°W  / 10.667; -61.517 Country   Trinidad and Tobago Jurisdiction City of Port of Spain Settled 1560 Incorporated (town) 1853 Incorporated (city) 1914 Government  • Mayor Joel Martinez  • Governing body City Corporation Area [1]  • City 12 km 2 (5 sq mi) Elevation [2] 66 m (217 ft) Population (2011) [1]  • City 37,074  • Rank 3rd  • Density 3,090/km 2 (8,000/sq mi)...
Read more

Run scheduled task as local user group (not BUILTIN)

Image
0 I am trying to run a scheduled task with User Group (not a single user). This is working fine when I in the field "when running a task, use the following user account:" insert BUILTIN User Group (for example: Administrators or Users). But when I try it with the created Local User Group (example: TestGroup) it is not working. The Users in the TestGroup are the same as in the Administrators group. What could be the problem? Are there some restrictions to the Created User Group compared to BUILTINUsers? scheduled-tasks taskscheduler windowstaskschedule share | improve this question asked Nov 15 '18 at 15:36 Far...
Read more