Pit of the gaping earth in snow-covered terrain

[jebrick]

@nDervish

@jebrick

So a sight ranged spell does not have to see the target?

R:Sight is the one time that I would agree that you must actually see (as opposed to perceiving in other ways) the target because seeing the target is the explicit definition of the spell's range.

So you could not use a PeCo spell on an armored knight because you can not see the Corpus part?

[callen]

@jebrick

@nDervish

@jebrick

So a sight ranged spell does not have to see the target?

R:Sight is the one time that I would agree that you must actually see (as opposed to perceiving in other ways) the target because seeing the target is the explicit definition of the spell's range.

So you could not use a PeCo spell on an armored knight because you can not see the Corpus part?

And it gets worse if you try to use a R: Sight Mentem spell.

[abe_ray]

maybe with a creo prequisite you could make spikes to cut into victims as they fall into the pit?

[nDervish]

@jebrick

@nDervish

@jebrick

So a sight ranged spell does not have to see the target?

R:Sight is the one time that I would agree that you must actually see (as opposed to perceiving in other ways) the target because seeing the target is the explicit definition of the spell's range.

So you could not use a PeCo spell on an armored knight because you can not see the Corpus part?

Yes, you could, because the armor is considered a part of the Individual knight for spell targeting purposes:

@ArM5

Clothes on a person or moss on a boulder are part of the person or boulder for these purposes.

If the armor is (for targeting purposes) part of the person, then seeing the armor is equivalent to seeing the person, even if the armor is opaque and covers them seamlessly.

This targeting equivalence is, however, apparently one-way - the armor (when worn) is a part of the knight, but the knight is not a part of the armor, so a PeTe to destroy the armor doesn't need to be T:Part. (I can't find this directly stated anywhere, but, e.g., Doublet of Impenetrable Silk is T:Individual, but does not require that the affected garment not be worn when the spell is cast.)

[Tiwaz]

@nDervish

@jebrick

@nDervish

@jebrick

So a sight ranged spell does not have to see the target?

R:Sight is the one time that I would agree that you must actually see (as opposed to perceiving in other ways) the target because seeing the target is the explicit definition of the spell's range.

So you could not use a PeCo spell on an armored knight because you can not see the Corpus part?

Yes, you could, because the armor is considered a part of the Individual knight for spell targeting purposes:

@ArM5

Clothes on a person or moss on a boulder are part of the person or boulder for these purposes.

If the armor is (for targeting purposes) part of the person, then seeing the armor is equivalent to seeing the person, even if the armor is opaque and covers them seamlessly.

And thus, snow can be considered part of ground beneath as well. As there is note of moss on boulder.

[jebrick]

Depends on how much snow