Suicidal trait and magic missile

[Unruly]

So this came up in a PbP that I'm running. An enemy cast magic missile, dropping a member of the party. One of the characters is a Tiefling with the suicidal trait, who is currently adjacent to the player getting hit.

He's wanting to use Suicidal to take the hit for the guy, and I've ruled that it works more along the lines of the Bodyguard/In Harm's Way feat chain in that it requires an attack roll of some sort for him to take the hit. In this specific instance, I quoted this line from Magic Missile's spell description -

Quote:

The missile strikes unerringly, even if the target is in melee combat, so long as it has less than total cover or total concealment.

Is that a correct interpretation or am I completely missing the point of the trait?

[lantzkev]

I'd say you're perhaps correct, but incorrect in the execution of things...

Quote:

Shame and horror fill your subconscious, and you never stop looking for ways to grant yourself the peace of the grave.

Benefit Once per day, as an immediate action, you can make yourself the target of any attack originally directed against a creature occupying an adjacent square.

What the ability does is change the target of the attack to him. It matters not how that power "hits" the target, it's that the target its self is changed.

Also it's in general better to be able to tell your players "yes" than "no" specially when it's to save another PCs character.

[Thornborn]

I can see it being interpreted either way. I'd go with letting you intercept the spell, but I would know it was not RAI or RAW. A spell is not an attack, unless there's an attack roll, I would be saying...

[Scavion]

Thornborn wrote:

I can see it being interpreted either way. I'd go with letting you intercept the spell, but I would know it was not RAI or RAW. A spell is not an attack, unless there's an attack roll, I would be saying...

The Suicidal Traits changes the targeting parameters of ANY attack.

Magic Missle is most definitely an attack spell designed to harm. Magic missle has a target. Suicidal changes that target.

[lantzkev]

it doesn't require an attack roll to be an attack.

now for the purposes of things like precision damage, sneak attack, etc... those do require an attack roll.

You'll also note this ability does not affect an attack roll, it affects the target of an attack by changing it to the tiefling 1/day

[graystone]

Thornborn wrote:

A spell is not an attack, unless there's an attack roll, I would be saying...

So an invisible wizard could keep using magic missile and stay invisible since he's not attacking? Doesn't that seem odd to you?

[Diego Rossi]

It is really an horrible trait.
"No, you don't want to target him, you want to target me because I am guilty"
I would hear the scream of "cheater" and "no way" across the ocean as soon as the BEEG get one o more tiefling with that trait as a bodyguard (and they can take it, the extra traits feat exist).

Extra fun if the attack is something that affect only humanoids and not native outsiders.

[seebs]

There's more than one sense of the word "attack".

1. Things that have attack rolls.
2. Things that harm or weaken creatures.

Magic missile is clearly an attack(2), but clearly not an attack(1). Unfortunately, the suicidal trait doesn't tell us which one it intends to apply to. I would rule that it probably means attack(1), because there's a whole lot of cases which generically use "attack" to mean "a weapon-or-unarmed-or-natural attack", and only a few cases which use "attack" more broadly -- and they're generally qualified as "for the purposes of..."

The fact that you're invisible when you cast magic missile means that it's an "attack" for purposes of breaking invisibility, but it doesn't mean you get sneak attack damage.

[lantzkev]

Quote:

Attacks: Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All offensive combat actions, even those that don't damage opponents, are considered attacks. Attempts to channel energy count as attacks if it would harm any creatures in the area. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks. Spells that summon monsters or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves don't harm anyone.

The rule book is a wonderful thing....

[CWheezy]

Magic missile is not an attack, so no

Quote:

The rule book is a wonderful thing....

Yeah I mean only a 1000 pages of rules for pathfinder, no problem

[lantzkev]

CWheezy wrote:

Magic missile is not an attack, so no

Quote:

The rule book is a wonderful thing....

Yeah I mean only a 1000 pages of rules for pathfinder, no problem

Quote:

All offensive combat actions, even those that don't damage opponents, are considered attacks

[Scythia]

I think of magic missile as unerringly hitting the chosen target, like the spell write up says. Whether or not magic missile is an attack (I believe it is), the specific language of the spell tells me that if someone jumped in the way, the missile would curve around them. Unerring things tend not to strike the wrong target.

[lantzkev]

Quote:

A missile of magical energy darts forth from your fingertip and strikes its target, dealing 1d4+1 points of force damage.

The missile strikes unerringly, even if the target is in melee combat, so long as it has less than total cover or total concealment. Specific parts of a creature can't be singled out. Objects are not damaged by the spell.

Tell me, is it any different than...

Quote:

Interposing hand creates a Large magic hand that appears between you and one opponent. This floating, disembodied hand then moves to remain between the two of you, regardless of where you move or how the opponent tries to get around it, providing cover (+4 AC) for you against that opponent. Nothing can fool the hand—it sticks with the selected opponent in spite of darkness, invisibility, polymorphing, or any other attempt at hiding or disguise. The hand does not pursue an opponent, however.

Both affect a target, neither have a roll required, both always hit their target, both have no saving throw....

The only real difference is extra info about cover/concealment that is irrelevant to these kind of attacks anyhow.

[seebs]

The key is "Some spell descriptions refer to attacking." The reason that language is there is that the following definition is only in the context of spell descriptions; other rules that refer to attacking may mean something else.

[lantzkev]

seebs wrote:

The key is "Some spell descriptions refer to attacking." The reason that language is there is that the following definition is only in the context of spell descriptions; other rules that refer to attacking may mean something else.

I think you're reading more into it than is there at all.

Trait says replace target of attack with you.

Magic missile is a damaging spell with a target...

trait kicks in and changes target. New target is unerringly hit by said magic missile.

There is no concern in this whole chain of events about attack rolls.

[Diego Rossi]

I dislike the trait, but it is very clear how it work:

Quote:

Shame and horror fill your subconscious, and you never stop looking for ways to grant yourself the peace of the grave.

Benefit Once per day, as an immediate action, you can make yourself the target of any attack originally directed against a creature occupying an adjacent square.

You chose to become the target of a attack, regardless of the attacker intentions.

In Pathfinder an attack is anything that try to affect someone if he don't want it to affect him.
Even if I were to cast invisibility on you it would be an attack if you don't want the spell. It even count as an armed attack as the rules about delivering touch spells don't care about the spell effect.

So anything that target the character you wish to protect can be redirected. The only question is if, in the OP situation, you can redirect all the magic missiles, as they can be targeted separately, or only one.
As a GM probably I would wait till all the magic missiles are assigned (but before rolling for SR, damage and so on) and then allow the redirection of all the missiles aimed at a target.
If the party was targeted with a slow spell I wouldn't allow the guy with the trait to change all the targets of the spell, only one.

I wouldn't allow him to redirect the spell if he is already one of the targets of the spell too, but that is a very personal interpretation.

[seebs]

Again, the word "attack" is used in different ways in different contexts. When a spell refers to attacking, it means "things that people don't want done to them". When other things refer to attacks, they often really mean "rolling to hit with a thing that is treated as a weapon". It is ambiguous. There's at least some cases where the PF team have clearly stated that, no, that ability can't be used with a spell (unless it's a spell that involves an attack roll), and some where they've said "yes, that counts as an attack".

The description given in the magic section that starts out "Some spell descriptions refer to attacking..." is specific to the interpretation of spell effects, not to other things. Some other things appear to pick up that sense, others don't. I don't think there's a clear and reliable way to tell which are which.

[Diego Rossi]

seebs wrote:

There's at least some cases where the PF team have clearly stated that, no, that ability can't be used with a spell (unless it's a spell that involves an attack roll), and some where they've said "yes, that counts as an attack".

You can link those posts, as they seem to go against the trait text and I am very curious to read them?

If the Dev interpretation make it more similar to the bodyguard ability and not some videogame aggro I would reevaluate it.

[lantzkev]

seebs wrote:

Again, the word "attack" is used in different ways in different contexts. When a spell refers to attacking, it means "things that people don't want done to them". When other things refer to attacks, they often really mean "rolling to hit with a thing that is treated as a weapon". It is ambiguous. There's at least some cases where the PF team have clearly stated that, no, that ability can't be used with a spell (unless it's a spell that involves an attack roll), and some where they've said "yes, that counts as an attack".

The description given in the magic section that starts out "Some spell descriptions refer to attacking..." is specific to the interpretation of spell effects, not to other things. Some other things appear to pick up that sense, others don't. I don't think there's a clear and reliable way to tell which are which.

What you're referring to I'm willing to say was almost exclusively effects that required a to hit roll... things like backstab etc... until you can find some FAQs to support you, the literal wording stands.

Under magic, attack is anything harmful.

Trait says "any attack"

Magic missile is harmful.

[Unruly]

So it's looking very possible, and likely, that I ruled incorrectly according to RAW.

lantzkev wrote:

Also it's in general better to be able to tell your players "yes" than "no" specially when it's to save another PCs character.

While that's usually the case, I made the decision on the fly and went with what popped into my head given a feat line that provides a similar effect and the text of the spell in question. I'm fully willing to go back and come up with a later ruling that everyone agrees with after this fight is over, but for the time being I went with what made the most sense to me as it happened.

[Umbral Reaver]

Wow, that's hilarious.

You can use it to redirect pretty much anything!

[seebs]

lantzkev wrote:

Under magic, attack is anything harmful.

Trait says "any attack"

Magic missile is harmful.

But trait isn't a spell.

The "under magic" thing applies to spell descriptions that talk about attacks, not about things which are not spell descriptions. The trait description isn't a spell description.

[seebs]

Diego Rossi wrote:

seebs wrote:

There's at least some cases where the PF team have clearly stated that, no, that ability can't be used with a spell (unless it's a spell that involves an attack roll), and some where they've said "yes, that counts as an attack".

You can link those posts, as they seem to go against the trait text and I am very curious to read them?

If the Dev interpretation make it more similar to the bodyguard ability and not some videogame aggro I would reevaluate it.

My post was unclear. I didn't mean this specific ability. But look at the rulings on sneak attacks; you can't sneak attack with spells unless the spells are weapon-like. There's nothing in sneak attack saying that specifically, and we had a thread recently where someone asked about sneak attacking with magic missile. On the other hand, you can crit with ray and touch spells, and I think there's a ruling saying you can sneak attack with them.

[Scavion]

lantzkev wrote:

Quote:

Attacks: Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All offensive combat actions, even those that don't damage opponents, are considered attacks. Attempts to channel energy count as attacks if it would harm any creatures in the area. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks. Spells that summon monsters or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves don't harm anyone.

The rule book is a wonderful thing....

Emphasis Mine.

Reading comprehension is difficult to come by. Good find lantzkev.

Magic Missle undoubtedly is an "Attack" which has a target.

Suicidal merely changes the parameters of it's target.

[Howie23]

Magic Missile is an attack, I don't see a viable argument against that.

I see two possible arguments against the trait working against magic missile in this instance, neither of which are conclusive.

Magic missile strikes unerringly. The trait changes the target of an attack. These are both specific rules. These are in conflict. The question then becomes which succeeds. There isn't a clear answer. A mechanism to resolve this is an opposed check of some sort. This mechanism is spelled out in D&D 3.5. I don't know if it is in PF, but is at least implied in the opposed Cha checks when some spells are in conflict. For PF, this resolution may fall into house rule territory.

The second may come down to a game style matter. As described in the OP, the trait was activated after the attack was resolved, to the point that the original target was dropped. An immediate action can be taken at any time, but can't be taken in the past. An ability like this places some demand on playstyle regarding GM announcing the attack and resolution. Did the player have an opportunity to interrupt before the original target dropped? Accommodating this kind of ability either takes a willingness to modify the normal flow of events, or compromise how closely to follow a linear sequence of actions.

I'm not a fan of these sorts of abilities. They put pressure on second guessing whether the ability would be used if the outcome was not already known when used in the normal flow of the game.

[Scavion]

Howie23 wrote:

Magic Missile is an attack, I don't see a viable argument against that.

I see two possible arguments against the trait working against magic missile in this instance, neither of which are conclusive.

Magic missile strikes unerringly. The trait changes the target of an attack. These are both specific rules. These are in conflict. The question then becomes which succeeds. There isn't a clear answer. A mechanism to resolve this is an opposed check of some sort. This mechanism is spelled out in D&D 3.5. I don't know if it is in PF, but is at least implied in the opposed Cha checks when some spells are in conflict. For PF, this resolution may fall into house rule territory.

The second may come down to a game style matter. As described in the OP, the trait was activated after the attack was resolved, to the point that the original target was dropped. An immediate action can be taken at any time, but can't be taken in the past. An ability like this places some demand on playstyle regarding GM announcing the attack and resolution. Did the player have an opportunity to interrupt before the original target dropped? Accommodating this kind of ability either takes a willingness to modify the normal flow of events, or compromise how closely to follow a linear sequence of actions.

I'm not a fan of these sorts of abilities. They put pressure on second guessing whether the ability would be used if the outcome was not already known when used in the normal flow of the game.

The ability must be used before the results are known. Which would be before the attack roll is made, saving throw or damage is rolled.

PBP is kinda funky. If I was targetting a player with a spell that I knew would probably drop him, I would ask if the player with suicidal if they wanted to use the ability.

[Cyrad]

Since they're both in conflict, I would say the spell takes precedence because it should be the more powerful effect. It's a spell specifically designed to always hit its intended target. A trait is just a mundane ability -- not even an extraordinary ability. Typically when it's magic versus mundane, magic wins.

[Scavion]

Cyrad wrote:

Since they're both in conflict, I would say the spell takes precedence because it should be the more powerful effect. It's a spell specifically designed to always hit its intended target. A trait is just a mundane ability -- not even an extraordinary ability. Typically when it's magic versus mundane, magic wins.

Oh boy. Someone brought a magic rules all argument in. Thats so perfect for game balance.

It does always hit it's target. The trait changes the target. Pretty simple stuff.

[Zhayne]

I'm with Scavion.

Wizard fires Magic Missle at Target Character A.
Character B uses his trait to make himself Target.
The Magic Missile now unerringly strikes its target, which is Character B.

[Cyrad]

Scavion wrote:

Cyrad wrote:

Since they're both in conflict, I would say the spell takes precedence because it should be the more powerful effect. It's a spell specifically designed to always hit its intended target. A trait is just a mundane ability -- not even an extraordinary ability. Typically when it's magic versus mundane, magic wins.

Oh boy. Someone brought a magic rules all argument in. Thats so perfect for game balance.

It's not even that. Traits are not supposed to be very powerful, and yet this has the ability to redirect and potentially negate a magic spell. That's considerably more powerful than a feat. Traits are supposed to have half the power of a feat. Thus, I argue for the interpretation that makes a trait not as powerful as a feat. Therefore, magic missile should have precedence.

[Unruly]

Howie23 wrote:

The second may come down to a game style matter. As described in the OP, the trait was activated after the attack was resolved, to the point that the original target was dropped. An immediate action can be taken at any time, but can't be taken in the past. An ability like this places some demand on playstyle regarding GM announcing the attack and resolution. Did the player have an opportunity to interrupt before the original target dropped? Accommodating this kind of ability either takes a willingness to modify the normal flow of events, or compromise how closely to follow a linear sequence of actions.

This was during a PbP, so the player in question didn't have time to react between the announced casting and its resolution(a single post). But, being PbP, you have to be somewhat flexible with how that sort of thing works out, which I'm trying to do. I'm just worried that if the trait is able to pull anything and everything away from another player that it's exceedingly powerful for what it is. It becomes a 1/day supercharged In Harm's Way without the feat tax of Bodyguard.

I'm thinking that I'll houserule it as something like the following: If a spell requires a save or an attack roll and calls out specific targets, you can redirect it to yourself. If it doesn't meet those criteria, it can't be redirected. So no redirecting AoE spells and no redirecting spells like magic missile or interposing hand, but it can be used to redirect things like sleep, dominate, etc.

Would that sound like a fair ruling to you guys? It leaves the trait distinct from In Harm's Way, but doesn't allow it to block absolutely everything.

[MotherGoose]

Does it sound fair? Yes and No...
Its blatantly house ruling away from the RAW but then again its house ruling. As players when house ruling is in our favor its a great thing and when its not it sucks this is not in the players favor and for him/her it probably sucks really bad.