magic missile to interrupt ?

[Seraphimpunk]

when using a readied magic missile to interrupt, its the total damage that the target has to make a concentration check vs. right?

Magic section prd wrote:

njury: If you take damage while trying to cast a spell, you must make a concentration check with a DC equal to 10 + the damage taken + the level of the spell you're casting. If you fail the check, you lose the spell without effect. The interrupting event strikes during spellcasting if it comes between the time you started and the time you complete a spell (for a spell with a casting time of 1 full round or more) or if it comes in response to your casting the spell (such as an attack of opportunity provoked by the spell or a contingent attack, such as a readied action).

If you are taking continuous damage, such as from an acid arrow or by standing in a lake of lava, half the damage is considered to take place while you are casting a spell. You must make a concentration check with a DC equal to 10 + 1/2 the damage that the continuous source last dealt + the level of the spell you're casting. If the last damage dealt was the last damage that the effect could deal, then the damage is over and does not distract you.

Spell: If you are affected by a spell while attempting to cast a spell of your own, you must make a concentration check or lose the spell you are casting. If the spell affecting you deals damage, the DC is 10 + the damage taken + the level of the spell you're casting.

If the spell interferes with you or distracts you in some other way, the DC is the spell's saving throw DC + the level of the spell you're casting. For a spell with no saving throw, it's the DC that the spell's saving throw would have if a save were allowed (10 + spell level + caster's ability score).

so , throwing multiple daggers at a caster, would be "injury" and make a check vs. each dagger that hits.

but a spell like magic missile is once, for the damage the spell deals, and scorching ray is once for the spell, not per attack used in the spell ( at higher levels , 2 rays, 3 rays etc ).

right?

[LazarX]

That's correct, because the damage all happens at once.

[SlimGauge]

If you've readied an action to attack a caster, you only get a standard action's worth of attack in. How would you throw multiple daggers at the caster in that case ? (without multiple attackers EACH having throw a dagger).

[Nefreet]

It doesn't matter if it's one dagger, 5 magic missiles, or 5 different characters making separate attacks. The caster makes one concentration check with all damage applied to the DC.

PRD wrote:

If you take damage while trying to cast a spell, you must make a concentration check with a DC equal to 10 + the damage taken + the level of the spell you're casting. If you fail the check, you lose the spell without effect. The interrupting event strikes during spellcasting if it comes between the time you started and the time you complete a spell (for a spell with a casting time of 1 full round or more) or if it comes in response to your casting the spell (such as an attack of opportunity provoked by the spell or a contingent attack, such as a readied action).

In the case of the one round casting time example above, spellcaster starts casting summon monster I, then takes 5 hits over the course of the next round for 40 damage. When the caster's turn comes around again he'd have to make a DC 51 Concentration check (10 + SL + Dmg taken), not 5 separate Concentration checks.

[Jiggy]

Nefreet wrote:

It doesn't matter if it's one dagger, 5 magic missiles, or 5 different characters making separate attacks. The caster makes one concentration check with all damage applied to the DC.

PRD wrote:

If you take damage while trying to cast a spell, you must make a concentration check with a DC equal to 10 + the damage taken + the level of the spell you're casting. If you fail the check, you lose the spell without effect. The interrupting event strikes during spellcasting if it comes between the time you started and the time you complete a spell (for a spell with a casting time of 1 full round or more) or if it comes in response to your casting the spell (such as an attack of opportunity provoked by the spell or a contingent attack, such as a readied action).

In the case of the one round casting time example above, spellcaster starts casting summon monster I, then takes 5 hits over the course of the next round for 40 damage. When the caster's turn comes around again he'd have to make a DC 51 Concentration check (10 + SL + Dmg taken), not 5 separate Concentration checks.

That's an interpretation that I haven't heard before. How did you determine when the concentration check would occur?

[Nefreet]

In the section I quoted:

"The interrupting event strikes during spellcasting if it comes between the time you started and the time you complete a spell (for a spell with a casting time of 1 full round or more) or if it comes in response to your casting the spell (such as an attack of opportunity provoked by the spell or a contingent attack, such as a readied action)."

Between starting and completing a spell.

If caster begins SMI on initiative order 20, and takes damage on initiative order 10, he still hasn't completed casting yet. All damage taken before initiative order 20 the next round gets counted.

The section I quoted earlier says to make a concentration check for damage taken while casting, not multiple checks for each instance.

[Jiggy]

Nefreet wrote:

In the section I quoted:

"The interrupting event strikes during spellcasting if it comes between the time you started and the time you complete a spell (for a spell with a casting time of 1 full round or more) or if it comes in response to your casting the spell (such as an attack of opportunity provoked by the spell or a contingent attack, such as a readied action)."

Between starting and completing a spell.

If caster begins SMI on initiative order 20, and takes damage on initiative order 10, he still hasn't completed casting yet. All damage taken before initiative order 20 the next round gets counted.

That is not an answer to the question I asked.

The question you answered is "When does the damage have to take place in order to force a concentration check?"

The question I asked was "How did you determine when the concentration check would occur?"

[Nefreet]

Jiggy wrote:

That's an interpretation that I haven't heard before.

That's the only way I've seen it done.

How do you do it?

[Nefreet]

Jiggy wrote:

The question you answered is "When does the damage have to take place in order to force a concentration check?"

The question I asked was "How did you determine when the concentration check would occur?"

No, I answered the question you posed.

The damage is totaled between when you start and when you complete casting a spell.

Ergo, the Concentration check must come when you would be completing your spell.

[Nefreet]

If we operated using multiple Concentration checks, then magic missile would virtually never interrupt a spellcaster, because the multiple Concentration check DCs would be super low.

[Jiggy]

Nefreet wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

The question you answered is "When does the damage have to take place in order to force a concentration check?"

The question I asked was "How did you determine when the concentration check would occur?"

No, I answered the question you posed.

The damage is totaled between when you start and when you complete casting a spell.

Ergo, the Concentration check must come when you would be completing your spell.

The "ergo" part is missing from your previous post; I didn't realize that what you said was a premise for an unspoken answer rather than being the answer all by itself. ;)

Nefreet wrote:

How do you do it?

That whenever you take damage, you make a check immediately. I do this for several reasons:

1) Totaling up the damage is an extra step that isn't in the text; usually, an additional step would be mentioned explicitly, and it's not.

2) Generally, when rules say "If X happens, do Y", they either mean right then or they specify how long to wait first. Heck, generally when anyone—not just a rule author—says "If X happens, do Y" they mean to do Y right then unless they specify other timing. That's just how people normally talk, and there's no existing game mechanic that sets a different paradigm under which to interpret that kind of language.

3) Some spells (like lesser restoration) have some fairly long casting times. If getting stabbed distracts you enough to disrupt your spellcasting does it make sense that you would keep casting for 12 seconds or a minute or 9 minutes after getting stabbed before your focus finally faltered? Or does it make more sense that getting stabbed breaks your concentration when you get stabbed?

[Majuba]

Nefreet wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

That's an interpretation that I haven't heard before.

That's the only way I've seen it done.

How do you do it?

I believe Jiggy (and most/all GMs I've seen) require a concentration for each "interrupting event" that strikes during the spellcasting. While there is no language that mentions making multiple checks for each instance, there is also no language for totaling damage from each instance to determine the DC.

When the rules describe a singular event, it generally requires a check for each such event. This can be better or worse for the caster, depending on their chance to succeed (e.g. three hits for 2 damage each might be automatic success, or it might be three 50% chances to fail instead of one 70% chance).

I think you are misreading the bold paragraph you quoted. It is simply defining at what times an interrupting event can strike to disrupt a spell. No more or less than that. That section in itself does not point to single check or multiple checks.

However, the rules definitely do allow for multiple checks. For instance, there is no rules for how to combine continuous damage and interrupting event damage for a difference DC. You also might have a distracting spell or weather condition force another check. Given there are already multiple potential checks, it seems straight-forward to use more here.

Your method does have some interesting implications. It means no one knows if their attack has succeeded in disrupting a caster until he is dead or his next turn comes. That could add suspense and reduce metagaming a bit, but also add frustration perhaps. Totaling the damage also makes casting spells harder in general.

OP: For the record, I total magic missile damage, but use separate checks for scorching ray (came up last Saturday). I probably do that because I'm used to separating damage for potential energy resistance. Given they are simultaneous, perhaps I shouldn't. I wouldn't call two readied attacks simultaneous however, or even a scorching ray and a quickened scorching ray.

[Titania, the Summer Queen]

Jiggy wrote:

Nefreet wrote:

In the section I quoted:

"The interrupting event strikes during spellcasting if it comes between the time you started and the time you complete a spell (for a spell with a casting time of 1 full round or more) or if it comes in response to your casting the spell (such as an attack of opportunity provoked by the spell or a contingent attack, such as a readied action)."

Between starting and completing a spell.

If caster begins SMI on initiative order 20, and takes damage on initiative order 10, he still hasn't completed casting yet. All damage taken before initiative order 20 the next round gets counted.

That is not an answer to the question I asked.

The question you answered is "When does the damage have to take place in order to force a concentration check?"

The question I asked was "How did you determine when the concentration check would occur?"

The spell sm1 is a full round casting time. So the spell isn't complete until just before his turn next round. Because combat happens mostly all at once the concentration check needs to cover all the damage.

[Jiggy]

Nefreet wrote:

If we operated using multiple Concentration checks, then magic missile would virtually never interrupt a spellcaster, because the multiple Concentration check DCs would be super low.

For the specific case of magic missile, see the rule about being affected by damage-dealing spells; unless it's ongoing damage, you make one check that references the total damage dealt by the spell.

So if I hit you with MM for a total of 7 damage, you would immediately make a DC 17 (+spell level) concentration check. If my ally then also hit you with his own MM for a total of 9 damage, you would then make a second check at DC 19+spell level.

[MechE_]

Jiggy wrote:

Nefreet wrote:

If we operated using multiple Concentration checks, then magic missile would virtually never interrupt a spellcaster, because the multiple Concentration check DCs would be super low.

For the specific case of magic missile, see the rule about being affected by damage-dealing spells; unless it's ongoing damage, you make one check that references the total damage dealt by the spell.

So if I hit you with MM for a total of 7 damage, you would immediately make a DC 17 (+spell level) concentration check. If my ally then also hit you with his own MM for a total of 9 damage, you would then make a second check at DC 19+spell level.

This is the way I would do it.

Also, Majuba, I would probably total the scorching ray damage as well before making the check. That makes Scorching ray a pretty good spell for disrupting a spellcaster - need to keep that one in mind. =)

[Nefreet]

Titania, the Summer Queen wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

Nefreet wrote:

In the section I quoted:

"The interrupting event strikes during spellcasting if it comes between the time you started and the time you complete a spell (for a spell with a casting time of 1 full round or more) or if it comes in response to your casting the spell (such as an attack of opportunity provoked by the spell or a contingent attack, such as a readied action)."

Between starting and completing a spell.

If caster begins SMI on initiative order 20, and takes damage on initiative order 10, he still hasn't completed casting yet. All damage taken before initiative order 20 the next round gets counted.

That is not an answer to the question I asked.

The question you answered is "When does the damage have to take place in order to force a concentration check?"

The question I asked was "How did you determine when the concentration check would occur?"

The spell sm1 is a full round casting time. So the spell isn't complete until just before his turn next round. Because combat happens mostly all at once the concentration check needs to cover all the damage.

Thank you. That's what I was trying to say earlier, but you were much more concise.

[Nefreet]

Jiggy, the rules say to make "a" concentration check, not multiple checks.

You say that adding up all the damage is a step not written in the rules, but I don't see where multiple checks are written in the rules, either.

I see "a" check, made upon completion of the spell.

If this is something that changed from 3.5 to Pathfinder, I may be wrong. Sometimes I do operate with that prior rules knowledge.

But, again, if multiple checks are required, how is that any less bookkeeping than the method I'm used to?

Your method requires 5 checks, each with a different DC.

My method requires 1 check, with a single DC.

[Zhayne]

The less bookkeeping comes because you don't have to tally the damage. You make a check, pass or fail, you no longer have to worry about that attack.

I can find no language in the description of concentration that supports your position. It clearly reads to me as 'at the time you take damage, make the check'.

[Jiggy]

Nefreet wrote:

Jiggy, the rules say to make "a" concentration check

Yes, it says that if you take damage, you make "a" check. It does not say that if you take damage, you wait to see if you take any more, then total it all up, then make a check.

"If you take damage, make a check."

That's the rule.

The rule you seem to think is there is instead "If you reach the end of your casting time and have taken damage, make a check."

But that's not what it says.

If you take damage, make a check.

You might have to invoke the rule multiple times, but that's still "a" check each time you invoke the rule.

Quote:

I see "a" check, made upon completion of the spell.

No you don't. You see "a check", but "made upon completion of the spell" is something you've inserted yourself for one reason or another. Nothing in the concentration rules says anything about the check happening at the end of the casting time.

Quote:

If this is something that changed from 3.5 to Pathfinder, I may be wrong. Sometimes I do operate with that prior rules knowledge.

No idea; I didn't play previous editions.

Quote:

But, again, if multiple checks are required, how is that any less bookkeeping than the method I'm used to?

Your method requires 5 checks, each with a different DC.

My method requires 1 check, with a single DC.

You have to keep a running tally of damage, then remember to make a check later. I just have to respond to an event, then I'm done with it.

[Rogue Eidolon]

Jiggy is correct, that's what I always do. He was also correct for both 3.0 and 3.5. There is also a separate rule about ongoing damage wherein ongoing damage applies to the spellcasting even if it isn't a readied action, but you can still handle the ongoing damage using Jiggy' method.

[Dosgamer]

Faster for us to run it like Nefreet and Titania have stated. Make one check right before you cast the spell, totaling up the damage taken since you started it. One check and done. Admittedly, it very rarely comes up and in those few cases the damage is nearly always only from one source (rarely multiple). So it's a corner case at best for us.

[Majuba]

Nefreet wrote:

I see "a" check, made upon completion of the spell.

If this is something that changed from 3.5 to Pathfinder, I may be wrong. Sometimes I do operate with that prior rules knowledge.

I think it's clear that the rules are referencing "a" check, in regards to "a" interrupting event. Extrapolating that to cover multiple events is for the DM to decide. It's very reasonable to say one check per event, and it's completely plausible to say one check per spell. Just have to be consistent.

FYI - rules are identical for 3.5. And no help from the 3.5 FAQ on the topic either.

[FLite]

Heh. Great. More things to keep in mind. (Both my current main characters are caster killers, so I bet this is going to come up a lot.)

[Nefreet]

@ Jiggy: Getting rid of the 1 round casting time example, if said spellcaster was instead casting a standard action spell, and provoked three attacks of opportunity, all of which hit, would you still ask for 3 checks?

[Slacker2010]

.

[Majuba]

Nefreet wrote:

@ Jiggy: Getting rid of the 1 round casting time example, if said spellcaster was instead casting a standard action spell, and provoked three attacks of opportunity, all of which hit, would you still ask for 3 checks?

I would.

Thematically, I see it as a magnification of power differences. A caster far stronger than the party could have an easy time making three checks, while a caster close to the party would have great difficulty making so many (e.g. 3 50%'s = 12.5% to succeed, while 3 80%'s would still be 51.2%). A great wizard casting off the mob and retaining his spell is somewhat iconic. If you stack it all the attacks together, it's just a matter of what level you are to tell if it's auto fail or not - as soon as the average hit damage exceeds 10-15 no one is going to be able to make the check.

[blue_the_wolf]

just a note... i use the total damage, total distraction method.

if my caster is trying to cast a spell while standing on the deck of a ship in a storm and then he gets hit by a readied action i don't roll one concentration for the environment and one for the damage.

I add it all up and roll one check. it makes the check much harder but in my mind the roll is your ability to over come ALL of the distractions that are affecting you at the time of the casting.

For example if i am carefully reciting "twinkle twinkle little star" and am facing the distraction of a bad smell, a funny joke and a feather in my ear... i am not individually affected by 3 separate events during the recital. Its one event, the recital, and I am trying to overcome the combined distraction from 3 different sources.

but thats just our tables conclusion.

[Claxon]

Personally I've always viewed it as total up the damage for the round to calculate the DC. Which makes the DC to not lose the spell higher, which is exactly how it should be. It would explain (at least a little bit) why casters haven't completely dominated Golarion's landscape. Because 10 peaseants with crossbows against a 12th level caster might not be a match, but if they all ready an action to shoot when the mage starts to cast...well he probably can't make that check.

In my opinion allowing a check against each damage source trivializes the check.

[SlimGauge]

blue_the_wolf wrote:

just a note... i use the total damage, total distraction method.

if my caster is trying to cast a spell while standing on the deck of a ship in a storm and then he gets hit by a readied action i don't roll one concentration for the environment and one for the damage.

IMHO, those ARE separate checks, because there are modifiers that apply to one but not the other and traits/feats that can totally avoid one but not the other.

I thought the question was ONLY about being damaged by attacks. Are those totaled over all attacks or rolled once for each attack ?

[fretgod99]

Rogue Eidolon wrote:

Jiggy is correct, that's what I always do. He was also correct for both 3.0 and 3.5. There is also a separate rule about ongoing damage wherein ongoing damage applies to the spellcasting even if it isn't a readied action, but you can still handle the ongoing damage using Jiggy' method.

This is how I run it, too.

[Kazaan]

The idea of failing the concentration check is that even if you complete the spell, sufficient distraction made something go awry in the process; you didn't get the finger wiggle quite right or you didn't say the incantation properly. You don't find out until you complete it, though, when it either fizzles or goes off properly. Now, if you were casting a 5 round spell and took a massive hit after only 1 round, I can see just straight-up aborting the spell if you figure it probably won't do any good to continue anyway; in which case the concentration check is a moot point. But I've always seen the resolution of a round as being a sort of Schrodinger's event where what happened over the past 6 seconds is sort of in a state of quantum flux until the rolls tell the players exactly what happened. Sure, the characters may already know what happened, but we don't. The concentration check seems to work the same way. You make a check that, retroactively, determines if you had sufficient distraction over the course of the casting to flub it up which you only find out when you point your finger and shout FIREBALL and absolutely nothing happens and you're just standing there looking like a ponce.

[fretgod99]

Kazaan wrote:

you point your finger and shout FIREBALL and absolutely nothing happens and you're just standing there looking like a ponce.

I can't even begin to tell you how many times this has happened to me. So embarrassing ...

[blue_the_wolf]

agree with Kazaan

[seebs]

It has to be multiple separate concentration checks for multiple events. Think about a non-damaging but distracting spell, and a physical attack. You can't sum the "damage" because there's no damage from the spell. So obviously, those two things must be different concentration checks.

Everything I've ever seen is: Any time you are affected by a distraction, and are casting, you make a concentration check for that distraction. With a magic missile, it's a single spell, so it's a single event, and the damage from the missiles is the damage done to you by the spell, so it'd DC 10 + damage + SL.

Yes, it says you make a concentration check. When you are affected by a thing which damages or distracts you. So something damages or distracts you, you immediately make a concentration check. That was the one concentration check for that distraction.

[Friend of the Dork]

Im getting Jiggy with it.. erh I'm with Jiggy on this one. The trigger is clearly when you take damage, not "at end of your casting, if you have taken damage"

if (take damage)
concentration check.

A single attack or spell is a single incident. If I cast Summon Monster and a monster damages me, I have to make a concentration spell or lose the spell. If later in the round, or in the next round before my turns come up yet another enemy attacks me, I have to check again (assuming I didn't fail the first time).

This means I don't have to keep in mind and track damage over the course of a round, but can deal with each incident right then and there. Also, DCs do not become impossible to make, Concentration check in PF is hard enough as it is.

[Hunttar]

I personally think a check should be made individually after every event that occurs that would require a concentration check. As soon as a concentration check fails, the spell is interrupted and at that point its over... Or as long as the caster continues to make the checks he/she can continue casting.

I think waiting till the end of the spell completion and totaling all the cumulative effects at the end is just plainly wrong. And let me give a somewhat exaggerated example to illustrate my point of view.

The big bad guy is surrounded by his loyal henchmen who are protecting him as he begins to cast a VERY long spell to destroy a town. As he begins to chant the words to a Greater Planar Ally Spell (casting time 10 minutes) to summon a Demon; a hero who has managed to infiltrate his henchmen in disguise, sees what may be his only opportunity to save the helpless town. He stabs the big bad guy with his dagger 1 minute into the spell hoping to interrupt the casting. He succeeds in wounding the caster before he, himself is cut down by the henchmen...

So, do we have to wait 9 more minutes before we see if he interrupted the spell? (assuming the Big Bad Guy takes no more damage in that time.)

Or do you roll a caster check right there and then?

I would think as the Big Bad Guy who can cast that level of a spell he would know weather or not his spell was ruined or not... Or maybe you as a GM might only give him a Spellcraft Check; while he is continuing to cast for him to determine that. But certainly if he knows his spell is ruined he's not going to stand there another 9 minutes, casting for no reason and risk more possible attacks.

Granted this is about the most extreme case possible, but any casting that takes extra time like a summoning spell or applying some meta magic feats can result in a similar micro scenario. Once a spell is ruined the caster is going to stop casting and do something else. They are not going to continue wasting their actions till the end of what would have been the ruined spell's completion.

As for multiple smaller attacks not likely to disrupt a spell now; well that is not that unreasonable. Hitting a caster with a couple small, stinging attacks might not be enough to stop them. That caster's life might literally depend on getting that spell off to preserve their own life by destroying their enemies, healing themselves, allowing them to flee or whatever. But if that raging barbarian who's power attacking shoves 3 feet of steel through that wizard's stomach... Well that's usually enough to disrupt a spell.

There are just tradeoffs. Having a readied wand of magic missiles to disrupt a caster... it might work... You won't miss... You don't have to worry about that pesky mirror image like the Barbarian does. You just have to hope you get some good rolls on those d4s and hope the caster in turn rolls low on his concentration check.

Now if you had multiple people, all with readied actions, that say snuck up on the wizard as he is in the middle of his nasty summoning spell... And on a signal they all launched at once... the Wizard firing his wand of magic missile who was cloaked in invisibility, at the same time the Ranger and Rogue who both stealthed up fire a bow and throw a dagger... Assuming all hit due to surprise and catching the wizard flat-footed, then all that damage I would say should be added together to determine the Concentration Check DC. In that case a couple of small attacks could easily equal one massive hit.

[claudekennilol]

PRD wrote:

If you take damage while trying to cast a spell, you must make a concentration check with a DC equal to 10 + the damage taken + the level of the spell you're casting. If you fail the check, you lose the spell without effect. The interrupting event strikes during spellcasting if it comes between the time you started and the time you complete a spell (for a spell with a casting time of 1 full round or more) or if it comes in response to your casting the spell (such as an attack of opportunity provoked by the spell or a contingent attack, such as a readied action).

How is this even up for debate? It clearly states that if you take damage, you must make a check. It doesn't say anything about delaying the check or totaling up the damaging to increase the DC. The rest just defines when these events might occur. It's painfully obvious.

[thorin001]

The initial question is still a good one, is a high level MM one 'attack' or several? Same with Scorching Ray.

I suppose the answer is how you would treat it if the the target has resistance.

[thorin001]

In other circumstances that require some sort of check do you delay the check or apply it immediately? Thinks like making a Climb check when hit while climbing or an Acrobatics check if hit while balancing?

If not, why the difference? The language is the same for the skill checks and the concentration checks.

[wraithstrike]

This topic has come up before with no clear answer. I would rule that all damage from one attack such as scorching ray or magic missle leads to one DC, but I don't know if it is RAI. Yeah I know scorching ray has several rays and attack rolls, but the rays are released simultaneously.

[seebs]

Nefreet wrote:

Jiggy, the rules say to make "a" concentration check, not multiple checks.

Well, yes.

And the rules say to make an attack roll, not multiple attack rolls, when you attack.

But if you have multiple attacks, then each attack gets its own attack roll.

When you take damage, you make a concentration check for that damage. There is no statement that you accumulate the damage and make a combined check.

How do you handle "affected by spell"? Let's say that we have a ton of people who all cast fox's cunning on you while you're casting summon monster III. Each time a spell affects you, you have a concentration check with DC = 10 + SL (theirs) + SL (yours). So what happens? Each causes you to make a DC 15 concentration check? You sum the total levels of all the spells which affected you, and then add 10 + your spell's level? Do you add your spell's level once per spell?

The language is the same ("must make a concentration check"), but it's pretty clear that it is asking you to make a check with a DC determined by the single spell which is affecting you. Pretty sure injury is supposed to work the same way.

I've never seen anyone not run it that way, not that this tells us much.

[TPark]

I would point out than an analagous situation is when is damage applied to a creature? So, if you would apply all the damage to the creature before checking to see if it is dead, then all of the damage would be summed for the concentration check. IIRC, all of the magic missile spells targets must be selected before damaging any targets, while individuals using a readied action each attack and resolve individually.

[seebs]

TPark wrote:

I would point out than an analagous situation is when is damage applied to a creature? So, if you would apply all the damage to the creature before checking to see if it is dead, then all of the damage would be summed for the concentration check.

That's an interesting point. With magic missile, you have to pick targets all at once, then resolve all of the damage afterwards. With multiple distinct attacks, each attack is fully resolved before the next one starts.

The rule is pretty clear about multiple attacks each requiring a separate check; you make a check when you take damage. You don't make a check at some unspecified future time after you've taken damage, but only one check for multiple damage sources. But it's a little ambiguous when it's a single spell.

Thought experiment: You cast magic missile at a construct with 2hp. You have five missiles. Obviously, once one of those missiles hits, the resulting pile of material is no longer a valid target for the spell, because constructs don't go to "dying", and you can't target a non-creature with the spell.

[Kobold Catgirl]

My reflex is to say, multiple Concentration checks. We're talking multiple missiles here, which act independently of one another. In other words, you're loosing a Rapid Shot, not a Manyshot.

However, I'd say it's probably more reasonable to say something like "No matter what, they all strike at the precise same moment," to avoid making the spell a bit too annoying (and ineffective).

[leo1925]

I am with Jiggy on this one.
About MM and scorching ray:
MM requires one check, scorching ray on the other hand i am not sure... i am leaning to having it also require one check for simplicity but i am not sure.

[Wowbagger tIP]

I would say that if two wizards fire a scorching ray at a wizard with readied actions it is two checks.

If two wizards each fire a barrage of magic missiles, it is two checks.

If one wizard fires two scorching rays that both hit, I would say it is one check as the rays hit instantaneously.

With the two wizards firing scorching rays they can't make the timing exactly right to be instantaneous.