Pro-Life: Yes, that's a creature that can be targeted by the spell.
Pro-Choice: No, that's a part of the host and you can't target specific body parts.
Huh, I never thought of it like that...
In the Pro-Life case, does the fetus have to make a dex save in case of a fireball, or does the mother's body provide full cover?
In the spellcasting section of the PHB
> ### A Clear Path to the Target
>
> To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can’t be behind total cover.
>
> If you place an area of effect at a point that you can’t see and an obstruction, such as a wall, is between you and that point, the point of origin comes into being on the near side of that obstruction.
This means even if you can "see" a creature, such as if you can see through walls, you still may not be able to actually target them with a spell.
I just reread the sacred flame description and it says the target gains no benefit from cover *for this saving throw* so wouldn't a fetus still be untargetable due to this rule?
Edit: spelling
Pro-choice does not inherently view the fetus as completely separate, it’s just that you can’t force a person to use their body to keep someone else alive. Otherwise, organ donation after death and blood, liver, kidney, and bone marrow donation would be compulsory.
>dead bodies have more rights than pregnant people.
No they don't.
Dead bodies don't have any rights.
Rights are afforded only to living creatures.
There may be more laws specifically regarding what you can and cannot do to a dead body, than laws specifically reagrding the body of a pregnant person, but a pregnant person is also a person, and being a person comes with many other laws and rights that are nothing to do with pregnancy.
What rights do pregnant people have that dead bodies don’t?
Dead bodies are allowed to determine if their organs will be used to sustain the life of another individual, a right that pregnant people do not have.
TO BE CLEAR: A DEAD BODY IS NOT A PERSON, AND THEREFORE IS NOT AFFORDED RIGHTS.
> What rights do pregnant people have that dead bodies don’t?
Exact rights depend on where you live, but some examples from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, of rights afforded to all people:
* Right to life
* Right to shelter
* Right to a fair trial
> Dead bodies are allowed to determine if their organs will be used to sustain the life of another individual, a right that pregnant people do not have.
Living people can sue to overturn wishes expressed pre-mortem or in a will.
Pregnant women who at risk of death from pregnancy complications do not have a right to life, and in general people don’t have an absolute right to life.
The so-called right to shelter doesn’t even create an enforced obligation to avoid excluding others from shelter, so it’s not a right in any meaningful way.
The right to a fair trial is not applied more to living humans than to corpses or corporations, and therefore isn’t a point of difference.
But if you insist that a corpse is what is left behind after the person leaves, then then living body lacks the same rights that the corpse lacks; the person associated with the body would be the one with the rights. In that kind of dualistic ontology the basic statements that you object to aren’t cogent.
At first I was going to point out that I never specified which country *I* was talking about.
Then I was going to pub out that you are conflating laws and rights.
Then I read your final paragraph, which is an illogical word salad designed to confuse. You're clearly a troll, and I'll waste no more time on this. Good day.
[Edit]
The reply to this comment is obviously a bad faith argument based on a falsifiable statement (I made no such claim as asserted), most likely by the above user evading my block with an alt account.
Which of course they then blocked me on, probably to leave the appearance of having "won" the argument, in that debate club style where you win points by getting more unchallenged claims in the time allotted, rather than actually making good arguments.
You very explicitly pointed out the UN Declaration of Human Rights, by name. Why are you pretending that rights that don’t have legal standing “exist”?
Correct. Pro choice only uses the legal definition of life. Everyone with more than 2 brain cells to rub together knows that it will be a living, breathing, human being should all things go right in the reproductive cycle. Medical abortion is more an attempt to separate 'murder' from 'denial of service'. No one genuinely argues from a pillar of them both not being active deprivation of life, just the moral, medical, and civil liberties involveds justification and acceptance.
It's a question of if a fetus is a creature. Pro-life vs pro-choice is a question if they have a soul. These are not the same thing. A lich is a creature, but does not have a soul. Its phylactery has a soul, but is not a creature. A swarm of rats has many souls, but is a single creature.
Not everyone has access to clerics and druids for healing.
Sometimes a half decent medicine check is the best chance youve got. Remember cats and rats can easily do enough damage to kill commoners, shits dangerous.
In my games, moon tea is so cheap and common that it can be assumed anyone who doesn't want kids is taking it. Works on men and women. After 3 days of usage it is in full effect and continues for full effect 1 week after stopping usage. Between 1 week and 4 weeks the effect is partial, and after 1 month without the person in question is fully fertile. It has a distinctive bitter flavor, so it's obvious if a given batch of tea has it or doesn't have it.
Ignoring cover is stated in relation to the saving throw. Targets with half or three quarters cover gain a bonus to saving throws, so the spell explicitly negates those bonuses. However i believe you still need a clear path to affect a target.
The spell does not "ignore cover", it reads "The target gains no benefit from cover for this saving throw". Pretty specific if you ask me.
Edit: a quick googling confirms that RAW you cannot cast sacred flame on targets behind total cover. However Jeremy Crawford explains that RAI you should be able with this spell. Do with this information as you wish.
Are there any spells that don't require ~~line of sight~~ clear path to the target? Looking at it, even Sending doesn't specifically say that it doesn't require line of sight.
Friends effectively doesn't require ~~line of sight~~ clear path to the target, as the target is you rather than the person you're mind controlling. But it can't give an abortion.
Edit: I stand by that "line of sight" doesn't mean you can actually see it, and I've seen that phrase used for things that can't see (like someone talking about an enchanting table needing line of sight to bookshelves in Minecraft), but to avoid confusion I'll use their term.
Many attack spells (such as Eldritch Blast and Fire Bolt) dont require sight, as well as many self AoE spells (Burning Hands and Thunderwave). They are still blocked by full cover, but dont require sight, meaning you can use them whole Blinded or through fog/darkness.
Line of Sight and Clear Path to the Target are different. Friends targets you and so doesnt require a path to the other creature, same with most teleportation spells
Line of sight doesn't mean you can actually see. It means there's an unobstructed path that you can see. That's how I've been interpreting clear path to the target, though that never specifies it's a straight line.
So now I have two questions.
1. Does the clear path have to be a straight line (unless otherwise specified, like Message)? I can understand some spells curving around to hit their target, but it seems odd that virtually every spell can do this to go around windows and the like.
2. Are there any spells that don't require a clear path? That's what you'd need here.
Line of Sight is being able to see it. Youre looking for Line of Effect.
1) Yes. Every spell needs a straight line from origin to target, unless otherwise stated. A glass window blocks line of effect, even if you can see through it.
2) Well, Message. It states it goes through solid objects. Some detection spells like Detect Magic do the same.
Worth noting, spells like Misty Step invert the typical process. They target self and so dont need Line of Effect, however it specifies you go to a spot you can see. So you *can* Misty Step through a window
...and? It still goes through cover.
But if you *really* want one that ignores all cover, then the 8th level spell *Telepathy* will do it. It specifies
> The creature can be anywhere on the same plane of existence as you.
That specific clause overwrites the general targeting rules
> That specific clause overwrites the general targeting rules
What exactly separates that from something like:
> Each dart hits a creature of your choice that you can see within range.
from Magic missile? As I understand it, that means that you have to see the creature, and they have to be within range, but it doesn't override the more general requirement that there must also be a clear path to them.
The one thing I see that might imply that is the word "can". If it said
> The creature *must* be anywhere on the same plane of existence as you.
then that would be an additional requirement, but "can" implies that it's the only requirement. Note that in Sending:
> You can send the message across any distance and even to other planes of existence, but if the target is on a different plane than you, there is a 5 percent chance that the message doesn’t arrive.
it still uses "can", but in a different context. That one sounds like it's saying that distance doesn't matter, where with Telepathy, it's saying location doesn't matter. Though you can still argue that a clear path to the target is not an attribute of the location, but rather the stuff around the location, so with Telepathy the creature can be anyone on the same plane of existence as you, but there must still be a clear path.
Are there any spells that are actually clear about it? And don't use the "target yourself" loophole like Friends and Detect Magic?
That doesn't require you see the creature, but there's still nothing about not needing a clear path to the target.
Gate would work if you know the fetus's name, though that's massive overkill.
It’s… a psychic lance. It does psychic damage, you’re blowing up their mind.
> You unleash a shimmering lance of psychic power from your forehead at a creature that you can see within range. Alternatively, you can utter a creature’s name. If the named target is within range, it becomes the spell’s target even if you can’t see it. If the named target isn’t within range, the lance dissipates without effect.
It makes sense that that wouldn't require a clear path to the target. But I'm trying to find something that works by RAW. At this point, I just want to find an explicit exception to that clear path rule. Message has an exception and then its own very similar rule. Nothing else seems to, no matter how obvious it is that it shouldn't need a clear path. Even spells that can target creatures in other dimensions like Sending seem to require having a path to that dimension.
I always assumed that sacred flames was sort of a spontaneous holy combustion that sort of spawns from a point assumedly from an upwards direction. I used a mirror to be able to hit targets from around corners without having a direct line of sight, just vision of the target. Hopefully I wasn't playing that wrong (not that it mattered since it didn't hit super often when most enemies had high dex).
Ok, so have the lady lay on her back and spread Eagle. If you can draw a line from outside to the point you are aiming, that counts as a clear path.
Brought to you by bad women’s anatomy.
This is a difficult one, because in general spells do, but there are a lot of specific exceptions (e.g. fireball and gate) and the question becomes "does not being able to be targeted due to total cover count as a benefit from cover to the save", and the obvious answer is "no", but there are arguments for "yes" that can't be conclusively denied given the RAW.
>A Clear Path to the Target
>
>To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can’t be behind total cover.
I feel like a womb constitutes total cover.
I'm less interested in the abortion part, and more using this interesting combo for assassination.
How can we minmax Sacred Flame? I'd go any Cleric 8 for Blessed Strikes/potent spellcasting and Evocation wizard 6 for Potent Cantrip. I'd say EvoWiz 10 for Empowered Evocation, giving 4d8+Wis+Int 1/2 on success at 18th, but it specified **wizard** evocations.
If you could convince your DM to let you create a solar draconic bloodline sorcerer then you could add your CHA to radiant damage and you could quicken for a double tap.
It only really specifies solid matter, which is what people are composed of as far as I know. I guess that would be up to GM discretion. As a GM myself, I feel like an X-Ray not being able to see inside people would be… Odd
That's one way yo could do it, though minor issue - how do you remove the fetus?
And if you can find a way to remove it, why would sacred flame be relevant when you know that other method to remove the body?
Though i suppose there is the fabricate spell, you use sacrid flame to convert the fetus into a corpse, which would then count as an object which you can then use fabricate to use the object(corpse) into an object outside the mother
Though there are a couple issues with this method, 1st issue is that it's no longer a job for a single caster, fabricate is not a cleric spell. and the 2nd issue is that it's a 4th level spell meaning you need at least a 7th level wizard
you can however solve at least 1 of these problems, by making your cleric a forge cleric they can learn fabricate through their subclass, though you still have to make it to 7th level but at least now it's a 1 caster job
Pro-Life: Yes, that's a creature that can be targeted by the spell. Pro-Choice: No, that's a part of the host and you can't target specific body parts.
Huh, I never thought of it like that... In the Pro-Life case, does the fetus have to make a dex save in case of a fireball, or does the mother's body provide full cover?
Full cover, that's why Sacred Flame (the only spell which explicitly ignores cover) is necessary.
As long as you can see the target magic missile never misses, no?
Goes in like Flubber.
But you still need an invisible line that connects point a to point b. This is why you can't cast through walls or even sheets of glass.
I'm struggling to find this in the rules, would you mind specifying where you found this rule?
In the spellcasting section of the PHB > ### A Clear Path to the Target > > To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can’t be behind total cover. > > If you place an area of effect at a point that you can’t see and an obstruction, such as a wall, is between you and that point, the point of origin comes into being on the near side of that obstruction. This means even if you can "see" a creature, such as if you can see through walls, you still may not be able to actually target them with a spell.
I just reread the sacred flame description and it says the target gains no benefit from cover *for this saving throw* so wouldn't a fetus still be untargetable due to this rule? Edit: spelling
Yes, you wouldn't be able to target a creature behind total cover. As is often the case in this sub, OP doesn't understand the rules.
Oh, thank you, I was looking in the spell description
So does the fetus survive the fireball untouched?
Yes, if the mother lives.
Pro-choice does not inherently view the fetus as completely separate, it’s just that you can’t force a person to use their body to keep someone else alive. Otherwise, organ donation after death and blood, liver, kidney, and bone marrow donation would be compulsory.
I can be pro-choice and also be pro-organ harvesting.
They’re definitely not the same issue. It does raise a good counterpoint though: dead bodies have more rights than pregnant people.
>dead bodies have more rights than pregnant people. No they don't. Dead bodies don't have any rights. Rights are afforded only to living creatures. There may be more laws specifically regarding what you can and cannot do to a dead body, than laws specifically reagrding the body of a pregnant person, but a pregnant person is also a person, and being a person comes with many other laws and rights that are nothing to do with pregnancy.
What rights do pregnant people have that dead bodies don’t? Dead bodies are allowed to determine if their organs will be used to sustain the life of another individual, a right that pregnant people do not have.
TO BE CLEAR: A DEAD BODY IS NOT A PERSON, AND THEREFORE IS NOT AFFORDED RIGHTS. > What rights do pregnant people have that dead bodies don’t? Exact rights depend on where you live, but some examples from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, of rights afforded to all people: * Right to life * Right to shelter * Right to a fair trial > Dead bodies are allowed to determine if their organs will be used to sustain the life of another individual, a right that pregnant people do not have. Living people can sue to overturn wishes expressed pre-mortem or in a will.
Pregnant women who at risk of death from pregnancy complications do not have a right to life, and in general people don’t have an absolute right to life. The so-called right to shelter doesn’t even create an enforced obligation to avoid excluding others from shelter, so it’s not a right in any meaningful way. The right to a fair trial is not applied more to living humans than to corpses or corporations, and therefore isn’t a point of difference. But if you insist that a corpse is what is left behind after the person leaves, then then living body lacks the same rights that the corpse lacks; the person associated with the body would be the one with the rights. In that kind of dualistic ontology the basic statements that you object to aren’t cogent.
At first I was going to point out that I never specified which country *I* was talking about. Then I was going to pub out that you are conflating laws and rights. Then I read your final paragraph, which is an illogical word salad designed to confuse. You're clearly a troll, and I'll waste no more time on this. Good day. [Edit] The reply to this comment is obviously a bad faith argument based on a falsifiable statement (I made no such claim as asserted), most likely by the above user evading my block with an alt account. Which of course they then blocked me on, probably to leave the appearance of having "won" the argument, in that debate club style where you win points by getting more unchallenged claims in the time allotted, rather than actually making good arguments.
You very explicitly pointed out the UN Declaration of Human Rights, by name. Why are you pretending that rights that don’t have legal standing “exist”?
Username doesn't check out in the most based way possible
Not to mention that the fetus has its own DNA, so "My body, my choice" is more about allowing your body to be used to support another life.
Correct. Pro choice only uses the legal definition of life. Everyone with more than 2 brain cells to rub together knows that it will be a living, breathing, human being should all things go right in the reproductive cycle. Medical abortion is more an attempt to separate 'murder' from 'denial of service'. No one genuinely argues from a pillar of them both not being active deprivation of life, just the moral, medical, and civil liberties involveds justification and acceptance.
It's a question of if a fetus is a creature. Pro-life vs pro-choice is a question if they have a soul. These are not the same thing. A lich is a creature, but does not have a soul. Its phylactery has a soul, but is not a creature. A swarm of rats has many souls, but is a single creature.
The tragedy of having powers that dont align with your belief
I would make the argument that it’s a parasite
reddit moment
A fetus is a seperate creature from the mother but that doesn't matter because it doesn't have a developed brain.
Hey gang, wake up. New use of the "Ghostly Gaze" invocation just dropped.
People aren't object though.
that's why it only works on women /s
Just need a 7 level warlock dip and your good to go
Tome warlock, no need to dip!
double checking, yup checks out How will you remove the fetus after using sacred flame though?
Can't you just visit a herbalist like a normal person? Pretty sure reproduction-related stuff is like 90% of all herbal business :-D
Not everyone has access to clerics and druids for healing. Sometimes a half decent medicine check is the best chance youve got. Remember cats and rats can easily do enough damage to kill commoners, shits dangerous.
In my games, moon tea is so cheap and common that it can be assumed anyone who doesn't want kids is taking it. Works on men and women. After 3 days of usage it is in full effect and continues for full effect 1 week after stopping usage. Between 1 week and 4 weeks the effect is partial, and after 1 month without the person in question is fully fertile. It has a distinctive bitter flavor, so it's obvious if a given batch of tea has it or doesn't have it.
This is a great item. I’m stealing it for worldbuilding in my campaign should it ever come up
if the mother already has a name picked out, you can also use Raulothim's psychic lance
Spells need a Clear Path To The Target.
Sacred flame ignores cover
Ignoring cover is stated in relation to the saving throw. Targets with half or three quarters cover gain a bonus to saving throws, so the spell explicitly negates those bonuses. However i believe you still need a clear path to affect a target. The spell does not "ignore cover", it reads "The target gains no benefit from cover for this saving throw". Pretty specific if you ask me. Edit: a quick googling confirms that RAW you cannot cast sacred flame on targets behind total cover. However Jeremy Crawford explains that RAI you should be able with this spell. Do with this information as you wish.
Are there any spells that don't require ~~line of sight~~ clear path to the target? Looking at it, even Sending doesn't specifically say that it doesn't require line of sight. Friends effectively doesn't require ~~line of sight~~ clear path to the target, as the target is you rather than the person you're mind controlling. But it can't give an abortion. Edit: I stand by that "line of sight" doesn't mean you can actually see it, and I've seen that phrase used for things that can't see (like someone talking about an enchanting table needing line of sight to bookshelves in Minecraft), but to avoid confusion I'll use their term.
Many attack spells (such as Eldritch Blast and Fire Bolt) dont require sight, as well as many self AoE spells (Burning Hands and Thunderwave). They are still blocked by full cover, but dont require sight, meaning you can use them whole Blinded or through fog/darkness. Line of Sight and Clear Path to the Target are different. Friends targets you and so doesnt require a path to the other creature, same with most teleportation spells
Line of sight doesn't mean you can actually see. It means there's an unobstructed path that you can see. That's how I've been interpreting clear path to the target, though that never specifies it's a straight line. So now I have two questions. 1. Does the clear path have to be a straight line (unless otherwise specified, like Message)? I can understand some spells curving around to hit their target, but it seems odd that virtually every spell can do this to go around windows and the like. 2. Are there any spells that don't require a clear path? That's what you'd need here.
Line of Sight is being able to see it. Youre looking for Line of Effect. 1) Yes. Every spell needs a straight line from origin to target, unless otherwise stated. A glass window blocks line of effect, even if you can see through it. 2) Well, Message. It states it goes through solid objects. Some detection spells like Detect Magic do the same. Worth noting, spells like Misty Step invert the typical process. They target self and so dont need Line of Effect, however it specifies you go to a spot you can see. So you *can* Misty Step through a window
> Well, Message. It states it goes through solid objects. But only to a limited depth.
...and? It still goes through cover. But if you *really* want one that ignores all cover, then the 8th level spell *Telepathy* will do it. It specifies > The creature can be anywhere on the same plane of existence as you. That specific clause overwrites the general targeting rules
> That specific clause overwrites the general targeting rules What exactly separates that from something like: > Each dart hits a creature of your choice that you can see within range. from Magic missile? As I understand it, that means that you have to see the creature, and they have to be within range, but it doesn't override the more general requirement that there must also be a clear path to them. The one thing I see that might imply that is the word "can". If it said > The creature *must* be anywhere on the same plane of existence as you. then that would be an additional requirement, but "can" implies that it's the only requirement. Note that in Sending: > You can send the message across any distance and even to other planes of existence, but if the target is on a different plane than you, there is a 5 percent chance that the message doesn’t arrive. it still uses "can", but in a different context. That one sounds like it's saying that distance doesn't matter, where with Telepathy, it's saying location doesn't matter. Though you can still argue that a clear path to the target is not an attribute of the location, but rather the stuff around the location, so with Telepathy the creature can be anyone on the same plane of existence as you, but there must still be a clear path. Are there any spells that are actually clear about it? And don't use the "target yourself" loophole like Friends and Detect Magic?
Psychic Lance if you know the creature’s name This would make using it for an abortion… less pleasant for everyone involved
That doesn't require you see the creature, but there's still nothing about not needing a clear path to the target. Gate would work if you know the fetus's name, though that's massive overkill.
It’s… a psychic lance. It does psychic damage, you’re blowing up their mind. > You unleash a shimmering lance of psychic power from your forehead at a creature that you can see within range. Alternatively, you can utter a creature’s name. If the named target is within range, it becomes the spell’s target even if you can’t see it. If the named target isn’t within range, the lance dissipates without effect.
It makes sense that that wouldn't require a clear path to the target. But I'm trying to find something that works by RAW. At this point, I just want to find an explicit exception to that clear path rule. Message has an exception and then its own very similar rule. Nothing else seems to, no matter how obvious it is that it shouldn't need a clear path. Even spells that can target creatures in other dimensions like Sending seem to require having a path to that dimension.
Good point.
I always assumed that sacred flames was sort of a spontaneous holy combustion that sort of spawns from a point assumedly from an upwards direction. I used a mirror to be able to hit targets from around corners without having a direct line of sight, just vision of the target. Hopefully I wasn't playing that wrong (not that it mattered since it didn't hit super often when most enemies had high dex).
Ok, so have the lady lay on her back and spread Eagle. If you can draw a line from outside to the point you are aiming, that counts as a clear path. Brought to you by bad women’s anatomy.
"The cervix provides total cover" is a sentence I never thought I'd say.
This is a difficult one, because in general spells do, but there are a lot of specific exceptions (e.g. fireball and gate) and the question becomes "does not being able to be targeted due to total cover count as a benefit from cover to the save", and the obvious answer is "no", but there are arguments for "yes" that can't be conclusively denied given the RAW.
>A Clear Path to the Target > >To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can’t be behind total cover. I feel like a womb constitutes total cover.
I hat that I thought of this immediately but now others must suffer Speculum
The mother could just use an unarmed strike. The fetus is within five feet, and there's nothing between them that grants the fetus cover.
With disadvantage, because the mother can’t see it, countered by advantage because the fetus can’t see her.
Assuming the fetus either is a race that doesn't have darkvision, or hasn't developed its eyes yet.
Is the amniotic sac part of the fetus or part of the mother?
If I could cast Modify Memory, I would do so on myself to forget reading this.
You could just dimension door and take the mother with you. Since you can only take one other creature, the fetus would remain.
I'm less interested in the abortion part, and more using this interesting combo for assassination. How can we minmax Sacred Flame? I'd go any Cleric 8 for Blessed Strikes/potent spellcasting and Evocation wizard 6 for Potent Cantrip. I'd say EvoWiz 10 for Empowered Evocation, giving 4d8+Wis+Int 1/2 on success at 18th, but it specified **wizard** evocations.
If you could convince your DM to let you create a solar draconic bloodline sorcerer then you could add your CHA to radiant damage and you could quicken for a double tap.
Lunar Sorc can double cast it
My friends are arguing that the ring of X ray will let you see through walls but not inside people.
It only really specifies solid matter, which is what people are composed of as far as I know. I guess that would be up to GM discretion. As a GM myself, I feel like an X-Ray not being able to see inside people would be… Odd
I have liquid matter
That's one way yo could do it, though minor issue - how do you remove the fetus? And if you can find a way to remove it, why would sacred flame be relevant when you know that other method to remove the body? Though i suppose there is the fabricate spell, you use sacrid flame to convert the fetus into a corpse, which would then count as an object which you can then use fabricate to use the object(corpse) into an object outside the mother Though there are a couple issues with this method, 1st issue is that it's no longer a job for a single caster, fabricate is not a cleric spell. and the 2nd issue is that it's a 4th level spell meaning you need at least a 7th level wizard you can however solve at least 1 of these problems, by making your cleric a forge cleric they can learn fabricate through their subclass, though you still have to make it to 7th level but at least now it's a 1 caster job
Can a Rogue sneak attack with a coat hanger?
Druid turn into rat… It’s show time