DMs are encouraged to say yes whenever possible in 4e D&D. But in a recent game we experienced a situation that was very unusual and saying yes didn’t seem appropriate. As the DM I said no at the time but agreed that we should do some investigation before the situation happens again. I’ve been scouring the boards to see if anyone else has encounter the same problem and after two weeks of searching I haven’t found a definitive answer. So for the first time since we started Dungeon’s Master I’m asking our readers for their thoughts and interpretation on the correct way to interpret this ruling. I suspect that there won’t be a clear-cut right or wrong answer, but I’d like to get some input from the online 4e D&D community before my next home game.
Our problem stems from teleportation. Here are the facts about teleportation, none of which are in dispute. If a creature or PC wants to teleport himself he has to be able to see his intended target square. He can’t teleport behind a closed door and he can’t teleport if he’s blind. Yes, I know there are powers and items that let you bend these rules, but in our case we’ll go with the rules as written.
Here’s the situation. The party’s Wizard, Cruven, used his power Hammerfall Step. It’s a level 11 power granted from his Arcane Wayfarer paragon path. It’s a close blast 5 and targets each enemy in blast. If it hits, each enemy takes damage and the caster can teleport the target 3 squares. In most circumstances this is a very straightforward and incredibly useful power. The problem we faced was that Cruven couldn’t see the targets in the blast. Knowing how sight-dependent teleportation is in 4e D&D I ruled that creatures in the blast still took the appropriate damage if hit, but they couldn’t be teleported since Cruven couldn’t see them.
So the question I’m asking at its most basic level is this: Can you teleport a target if you cannot see him or if you cannot see his origin square?
Before we get into the actual debate, let me describe two similar situations where this ruling becomes tricky.
Situation 1
Luk the Rogue rushes through the door. Before anyone else in the party can act, Luk cries out in pain. “Help, I’m getting attacked.” Cruven is next to act and has no intention of following Luk into the room. Instead he decided to use Hammerfall Step to bring his unsuspecting opponents out to the party and give Luk some breathing room.
From Cruven’s position he can probably see Enemy 1 at least a little bit. Even if he can’t Luk tells him that Enemy 1 is directly in front of him. Cruven hits both Enemies in the blast. Enemy 1 is teleported 3 squares between Grumbar the Fighter and Are’zo the Assassin – both gain combat advantage from the flank and intend to put it to good use since they’re up next.
But what about Enemy 2. Cruven absolutely cannot see him from his current position. But Enemy 2 was hit and took damage. Is Cruven aware of how many targets he hit and their location within the blast? Even if he doesn’t, it’s magic so does it work despite Cruven’s ignorance? If he doesn’t know that Enemy 2 was hit how can he determine where his final destination of the teleport should be?
Situation 2
Luk the Rogue rushes ahead of the party seeing that the room is empty. Or is it? There are four invisible enemies in the room, none of which have been detected yet. Enemy 4 moves next to Luk and attacks him, becoming visible. Luk cries out in pain. “Help, I’m getting attacked.” Cruven is next to act. He moves up to the most strategic position and blasts the room using Hammerfall Step.
Cruven has no idea that Enemies 1, 2 or 3 are even in the room. He can only see Enemy 4. But experience has taught him that where there’s one foe there are often more, he decided to err on the side of caution and blasts everything. He successfully hits all four Enemies. Enemy 4 is teleported 2 squares between Josey the Rogue and Luk. Both gain combat advantage from the flank. Josey intends to put it to good use since he’s up next.
The other three Enemies take damage. But as in the previous example Cruven cannot see them. The player can see the minis on the map so he indicates where he’d like them to move, but the character doesn’t have a clue. Does the teleport happen anyway? Does the effect of the blast create a silhouette around the Enemies making them visible for a split second so that Cruven can determine where to teleport them?
As I said above, my initial ruling was no. If the character cannot see the target he cannot teleport him. But the more I’ve thought about it the more I’m leaning towards letting Cruven do exactly what he wants in both examples above. If the power was a push effect it would work. But then again push isn’t a sight-dependent power.
I’ve asked a few DMs how they would handle this scenario and none had a definite answer. One DM suggested that Cruven be able to teleport the unseen Enemies, but have some restrictions. Cruven can only determine distance and direction of targets in the blast. “I move all unseen enemies in the blast 3 squares away from me to the right.” If the target square isn’t a legal teleport destination (inside of a wall, for example) then that Enemy doesn’t go anywhere. Everyone else is moved 3 squares away as intended. But Cruven still wouldn’t know how many Enemies were hit, where they started or where they finished.
So again I’ll ask: Can you teleport a target if you cannot see him or if you cannot see his origin square?
I’m sure I’m opening up a can of worms, but I want to get this right. The player came up with a creative use of a power I don’t want to deny him the opportunity to use it to its fullest potential. In this case it’s a level 11 power which I think should let him do extraordinary things. So calling all rules lawyers and know-it-all DMs and players, please weigh in and let me know what you think. How would you handle the situations described above? Would you handle either case differently or do you have a ruling that works in all circumstances? I want your input.
[poll id=”22″]
View Comments (39)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1 2 3 4 Next »I guess more players read blogs than DMs, so more ppl will vote Yes :)
In both situations, the caster has line of effect, so he should get the benefit of it.
I would argue that in situation 1, he should be able to see that both targets are there from around the corner. If they were in a position where no part of his square can see any part of a monster, he wouldn't have line of effect, therefore they would be invalid targets by a blast.
Situation 2 is weird, because the enemies are hidden/invisible, so the caster doesn't even know they exist. I would still teleport them, but have it be random: 1d3 squares in a random direction, rerolling if that makes it an invalid destination (inside a wall or something). That way, you're likely to expose enemies hidden behind cover/concealment, but if they're all out invisible that is still a factor.
i'd love to simply say, "it magically happens," but this would be the mentality of an earlier game. The mechanics of 4e are built to place magic users and non-magic users into more level positions. even so, the knowledge of seeing the target and being aware of the target are different. I've always told players whether the PC is aware of an invisible target even if it cannot be seen.
Some powers stipulate whether the enemy must be seen or not, such as monk's five storms.
If the wizard in question were attempting to attack creatures that were invisible, yet he were aware of their presence (actually aware, not meta-game based on, "one enemy means probably more enemies") then he could target them for the power and fulfill the effects; however, if he rushed in to make the attack assuming there are more enemies, without gaining awareness of them, he cannot target those enemies.
Though they may still be included in the blast or burst, and be hit, is true, yet they cannot be targetted actively by the character that is not aware of their presence. thus, it becomes circumstantial, but generally speaking, "no, you can't target what you are not aware of."
The awareness becomes the difference between circumstances. If the rogue finds total concealment during combat and makes a stealth check, the enemy may not be able to target the rogue, yet he may remain aware that the rogue is nearby and hidden. If he wizard walks into a room under a cloak of invisibility, and using float, then that wizard may be able to completely avoid detection even if his party begins to attack in full view. The enemies would not become aware o fthe wizard and could not target the wizard, even if he happens to be within a blast or burst. That blast or burst ignores the concealment, but the enemy cannot ignore it.
ooohh. random directions.... i like that. that trumps me.
I can see why this is so tricky. Let's see...
Well, from PHB p. 57:
If a hit grants you the ability to compel the target
to move, whether through forced movement or teleportation,
you can move it any number of squares up
to the number specified (or not move it at all, if you
so choose).
That's interesting as far as it goes, but I'd think you'd need to read that section along with the section on teleportation in Chapter 9: Combat, found at PHB p. 286. Except that section explicitly deals with teleporting yourself and assumes that you can see the origin square of the teleport (since you're standing there).
So I'd say that, using RAW, the teleport part of hammerfall step would work just fine on unseen targets, since there's nothing in the bit at PHB p. 57 limiting the application of forced movement only to those targets which the player can see, and there's nothing in the teleportation section at PHB p. 286 limiting a player's ability to teleport an unseen target. Of course, the following caveats apply:
1) The proper penalties for hitting an unseen target must be applied and the attack must still hit;
2) The player must have line of sight to the target square (per PHB p. 286);
3) New errata re: teleporting to hindering (or mid-air) terrain should be used to give the target a saving throw to negate the teleportation.
Now, as to whether or not RAW makes sense in this context, I think there are good arguments on either side, and I think that a DM would be justified in ruling either way. Personally, without a compelling reason, I'd stick to RAW and rule that the magic of the spell tells you that you've hit a target and can teleport it accordingly. You just better hope you haven't just teleported a beholder to a square adjacent to you... :)
As long as your applying the
I like AlphaAnt's solution, and it's probably what I would use at the table. My first reaction after looking up the power was a question, though: the player succeeded on his rolls to hit, and that should mean something. So when the player rolls to hit with this power, what is she rolling? Hammerfall Step attacks Fortitude, which is often a proxy for a creature's resistance to being moved. Does an invisible creature's teleport resistance increase when the caster can't see them? For instance, does the caster have to "fix the target in her mind", and would invisibility hamper that fixation?
I say give the caster a -2 to hit if their existence is known but there's no LoS; give the caster a -5 for not even knowing the target is there.
Another approach is to notify the caster: "You feel more than one target in your teleportation spell - several unexpected targets. If you take your time casting -- make an Arcana check (vs each creature's Stealth roll) as a minor action -- you might be able to find those additional targets and get a chance to declare where you want to move them." On a success, remove the penalty to hit for the target being invisible; the caster can feel their presence by arcane means.
Oh yes, random directions, I like that too. I think that would be an interesting way to handle the situation, although (slipping rules lawyer hat back on) there's nothing in RAW that would justify that. Going strictly by RAW, I think the teleportation works as written as long as the target is hit. Also, AlphaAnt's reminder about having line of effect is important when considering situation #1.
I also like AlphaAnt's random suggestion. Time to break out the Scatter Dice from other miniature-based games. ;)
Having said that, depending on how the power is written, I may ask for a roll of some type that would indicate their ability to recognize the hidden enemies being affected by the power while it's executing and therefore being able to "grab onto them" and use the teleportation effect. (Which is essentially what JR wrote above, when I reread it.) The DC, if I were in the DM's seat, would be based on how distracted the player is (combat going around them, environmental effects, etc.), distance from the player and other factors that make sense. For example, if the invisible creature hit is trained in Stealth, I might give him an opposed roll against the player's roll since the creature is naturally better at being Stealthy, or if the encounter is complex enough, I may go on simplicity and let the trained-in-Stealth creature remain hidden or use the random roll.
Really, whatever makes the combat more interesting and unique and fun for the players and myself works for me. :)
I would say yes.
Teleportation is primarily concerned with the line-of-sight to the destination hex. Magic powers let you teleport/summon things that the character cannot see so, why wouldn't this be the same. The magic that affected a target would also have include teleportation effect so I would rule that the character could use the teleport as long as they have line-of-sight to the destination.
Since there is an unknown number of targets, this could have interesting and unintended results. Running out of room to move combatants, creating large groups of monsters with group powers, etc.
Teleportation requires sight to the destination square. The glossary entry makes no mention of the origin square. Unless there is another entry I have missed there is no requirement to be able to see the target to be able to teleport it. The fact that you hit it is enough (unless you have to see the target to attack it).
I would say that in the first situation both enemies can be teleported, but only to squares the wizard can see.
The second question is a little harder. The one he can see is surely affected by the power normally, but I would say not knowing about the presence of other enemies, by say a Perception check, I am inclined to prevent him from teleporting them since he doesn't know they are there.
However, his magic does hit them so in this case I would drop the invisibility instead of allowing them to teleport.
If he knows where they are, again by Perception or by another appropriate means, then the power works normally since he only needs to have line of sight to the destination and not the origin.
So using this power through an arrow slit when you know there are three guys hiding just out of sight would be able to pull them outside of the wall if they were close enough.