Toppling Spell + multiple Magic Missiles on the same target


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 92 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

10 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes, I see there are multiple threads on Toppling Spell and Magic Missile but mostly they end up talking about spreading multiple missiles to multiple targets and talking about how its Trip effectiveness drops off.

I just want to know:
If you cast a toppling magic missile and fire 3 missiles all at the same target, how many Trip checks do you make?

Sczarni

Just one.


Thank you.


Quote:
Benefit: The impact of your force spell is strong enough to knock the target prone. If the target takes damage, fails its saving throw, or is moved by your force spell, make a trip check against the target, using your caster level plus your casting ability score bonus (Wisdom for clerics, Intelligence for wizards, and so on). This does not provoke an attack of opportunity. If the check fails, the target cannot attempt to trip you or the force effect in response.

Emphasis mine. RAW the ability allows you to make a trip check anytime the target takes damage (up to 5 times with a magic missile spell).

Everyone I've ever played with houserules it to either once per spell, or once per target per spell. I think of it this way: if sneak attack is specifically nerfed with regards to multiple simultaneous attack spells then so should other rider effects because they become powerful well beyond any reasonable scope of intent otherwise.


Pizza Lord wrote:

Yes, I see there are multiple threads on Toppling Spell and Magic Missile but mostly they end up talking about spreading multiple missiles to multiple targets and talking about how its Trip effectiveness drops off.

I just want to know:
If you cast a toppling magic missile and fire 3 missiles all at the same target, how many Trip checks do you make?

There is no definitive answer because the rules lack clarity. Toppling Spell specifies that you get to make a trip attempt whenever the target takes damage from your spell. Magic Missile has multiple instances of damage so it is entirely possible to read it as allowing multiple attempts. You could also treat the spell as one batch of damage and only allow one attempt.

Essentially you simply have to accept that tables will vary. In a home game check with your GM. In PFS check with your GM as well, I have generally ruled it is one check per missile regardless of how many targets there are, others do differently.

Sczarni

Trekkie90909 wrote:
Quote:
Benefit: The impact of your force spell is strong enough to knock the target prone. If the target takes damage, fails its saving throw, or is moved by your force spell, make a trip check against the target, using your caster level plus your casting ability score bonus (Wisdom for clerics, Intelligence for wizards, and so on). This does not provoke an attack of opportunity. If the check fails, the target cannot attempt to trip you or the force effect in response.
Emphasis mine. RAW the ability allows you to make a trip check anytime the target takes damage (up to 5 times with a magic missile spell).

Interesting. We read the same text and come to different conclusions.

I dug around looking for a more definitive answer (I could have sworn this was in the FAQ), but could only find threads where the "general consensus" at the time was 5 targets, 5 checks, 1 target, 1 check.

Unless there's a general rule about rider effects on damage that I'm missing, I guess it is up to table variation.


atm it is up to table variation; andreww's reasoning provides a route to a better RAW answer.

Quote:
Benefit: The impact of your force spell is strong enough to knock the target prone. If the target takes damage, fails its saving throw, or is moved by your force spell, make a trip check against the target, using your caster level plus your casting ability score bonus (Wisdom for clerics, Intelligence for wizards, and so on). This does not provoke an attack of opportunity. If the check fails, the target cannot attempt to trip you or the force effect in response.

Emphasis mine. The Spell can only impact once per casting, so regardless of how many individual missiles there are, the spell is only dealing damage once per target (the amount of which is divided up between the missiles). It's still a little fuzzy, but this is definitely a better RAW reading than my previous post since it brings the spell in line with the general consensus.


Trekkie90909 wrote:

atm it is up to table variation; andreww's reasoning provides a route to a more concrete answer.

Quote:
Benefit: The impact of your force spell is strong enough to knock the target prone. If the target takes damage, fails its saving throw, or is moved by your force spell, make a trip check against the target, using your caster level plus your casting ability score bonus (Wisdom for clerics, Intelligence for wizards, and so on). This does not provoke an attack of opportunity. If the check fails, the target cannot attempt to trip you or the force effect in response.
Emphasis mine. The Spell can only impact once per casting, so regardless of how many individual missiles there are, the spell is only dealing damage once per target (the amount of which is divided up between the missiles). It's still a little fuzzy, but this is definitely a better RAW reading than my previous post since it brings the spell in line with the general consensus.

The problem with this is: It gives no incentive to aim all the missiles on one target.

Why should a caster with a toppling magic missile aim all missiles on the BBEG when a lone missile has the same chance of toppling him as a full spread. Spreading the missiles is already often better because you get to see if one target has a shield or the anti-magic missile necklace active.

While it would clearly be HR territory I think I'd give a bonus to CMD for multiple missiles hitting. Akin to the multiple creatures grappling together rules.


The spell gives you incentive to aim all the missiles at one target (it deals extra damage). The Metamagic gives the caster options when he's surrounded by enemies and he chooses whether he wants to do more damage to (a) certain target(s) or provide more CC. There's no design issue there. Also, while you can houserule it this is not the forum for that.

Keep in mind too that the caster has more than one spell at his disposal -- toppling magic missile is better for groups whereas toppling force punch is better for getting the BBEG out of your face. Going off that particular disparity think of the design point: why should an effectively second level spell (first level if you have certain traits) provide more CC attempts than a third level spell (effectively fourth with the same meta magic)?


Just a Guess wrote:
Trekkie90909 wrote:

atm it is up to table variation; andreww's reasoning provides a route to a more concrete answer.

Quote:
Benefit: The impact of your force spell is strong enough to knock the target prone. If the target takes damage, fails its saving throw, or is moved by your force spell, make a trip check against the target, using your caster level plus your casting ability score bonus (Wisdom for clerics, Intelligence for wizards, and so on). This does not provoke an attack of opportunity. If the check fails, the target cannot attempt to trip you or the force effect in response.
Emphasis mine. The Spell can only impact once per casting, so regardless of how many individual missiles there are, the spell is only dealing damage once per target (the amount of which is divided up between the missiles). It's still a little fuzzy, but this is definitely a better RAW reading than my previous post since it brings the spell in line with the general consensus.

The problem with this is: It gives no incentive to aim all the missiles on one target.

Why should a caster with a toppling magic missile aim all missiles on the BBEG when a lone missile has the same chance of toppling him as a full spread. Spreading the missiles is already often better because you get to see if one target has a shield or the anti-magic missile necklace active.

More damage.

I think a good way to see it is: would you ask five will saves vs a dazing magic missile? Would you allow 5 rounds of entanglement vs a rime elemental (cold) mágic missile?


If you looking for a good house rule try this one:

For every extra migic missle that hits a target add a +1 to it trip check.

So if two missle hit your target you get a +1 to your trip and if all 5 missles hit you get a +4.

The Exchange

I have to disagree on this one. The toppleing metemagic says the impact is what would knock them over. If you aim 3 magic missiles at one target there will be 3 impacts just because they are all going to the same target doesn't turn them into one large missile.

Grand Lodge

Cerwin wrote:
I have to disagree on this one. The toppleing metemagic says the impact is what would knock them over. If you aim 3 magic missiles at one target there will be 3 impacts just because they are all going to the same target doesn't turn them into one large missile.

You seem to be talking sense and then you say "doesn't turn them into a large missile".

Physics would disagree with your final point. This is incredibly simplified, but if each missile has 1 force behind it, then if three missiles hit then you're hit by 3 force. Now I'm not saying I have a horse in this race at all, I'm just saying if you're hit by three things equally hard then you're expending three times as much force to remain standing as if you were hit by just one of those things. Again, this is real world logic and I'm well aware that that doesn't mean it has a place in a rules discussion.

Silver Crusade

I could go either way on this one.

Since there's no definite consensus on this, I think we should all click the FAQ button on the first post and hope for Paizo to settle it, once and for all.


I have no idea where it is, but I'm almost positive there's a FAQ or errata or something that says simultaneous attacks like magic missiles all deal their damage at once as a unit to any one given target.

So two missiles hitting you you don't take 1d4+1 damage, then take 1d4+1 damage again. You take 1d4+1d4+2 damage all at once. So trip triggers once. Sorry I don't have any idea what terms to google for this, but 90% sure.

However, two missiles one each at two different creatures would trigger a trip for each.


Quote:
This is incredibly simplified, but if each missile has 1 force behind it, then if three missiles hit then you're hit by 3 force. Now I'm not saying I have a horse in this race at all, I'm just saying if you're hit by three things equally hard then you're expending three times as much force to remain standing as if you were hit by just one of those things.

Not necessarily. Imagine two hitting you from opposite directions, they wouldn't push you down at all. And since magic missiles are homing missiles, they should never be assumed to travel in straight lines anyway.

2 missiles could also add up to a resultant vector of 1 force if they hit at exactly 120 degrees from one another around the person.

Plus, as you point out, magic cannot necessarily be assumed to follow physics by default anyway.

Shadow Lodge

The spell hits up to 5 targets, one per missile. Each missile is targeted independently of the others, either by selecting a new target for it, or by selecting the same target as 1 or more other missiles. Because each missile is a separate and distinct effect of the spell in its own right, each missile will result in a check.
You never roll 5d4+5 against one target, you roll 1d4+1 five times against five targets which can all be the same individual, or separate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes you roll it 5 times, but since they all hit at once, that creature only takes damage once (the sum of all the damage rolls applying simultaneously).

Shadow Lodge

Crimeo wrote:
Yes you roll it 5 times, but since they all hit at once, that creature only takes damage once (the sum of all the damage rolls applying simultaneously).

By that same logic, if 5 fighters all tried to trip a character at the same time, they would collectively get only one trip attempt.


Master of Shadows wrote:
Crimeo wrote:
Yes you roll it 5 times, but since they all hit at once, that creature only takes damage once (the sum of all the damage rolls applying simultaneously).
By that same logic, if 5 fighters all tried to trip a character at the same time, they would collectively get only one trip attempt.

Well yeah... that seems pretty realistic and reasonable... I SHOULD only have to jump out of the way once as 5 people try to trip me simultaneously. What's your point? It will still be much harder than normal, because if they're doing it properly, 4 will ready an action to aid another, while only one trips, thus +8 bonus to the guy with the best CMB. But yes only one trip event.

Grand Lodge

Magic missile is one attack, therefore one manuever check.

5 people can't act at the same time, so the example is already outside the rule set and meaningless.

All other effects, including evo specialist damage apply to only 1 missile.

Although I allow toppling to affect multiple targets, I use the same check vs. them all, similar to black tentacles.


Quote:
5 people can't act at the same time

Yes they can all ready actions on the same trigger. But I would simply apply the same logic which still seems to work just fine.

Shadow Lodge

If Paizo wants to FAQ it so that each additional missile grants an aid another bonus to the trip attempt of the first missile, then I'd be fine with that (it would certainly streamline the dice rolling). Until they do, by RAW each missile is its own effect, deals its own damage, and would in turn trigger its own trip attempt.


Okay fine, you made me go look it up.

From the FAQ:

Quote:

Sneak Attack: Can I add sneak attack damage to simultaneous attacks from a spell?

No. For example, scorching ray fires simultaneous rays at one or more targets, and the extra damage is only added once to one ray, chosen by the caster when the spell is cast. Spell-based attacks which are not simultaneous, such as multiple attacks per round by a 8th-level druid using flame blade, may apply sneak attack damage to each attack so long as each attack qualifies for sneak attack (the target is denied its Dex bonus or the caster is flanking the target).

^ I.e. spell based attacks that hit simultaneously not applying damage-triggered bonuses more than once. This is actually more strict than I remember it being, and would translate to an entire toppling magic missile spell only getting ONE trip attempt on ONE target, total.

Grand Lodge

Crimeo wrote:
Quote:
5 people can't act at the same time
Yes they can all ready actions on the same trigger. But I would simply apply the same logic which still seems to work just fine.

Not to argue a tangent, even readied actions using the same trigger aren't simultaneous. The timing is still individual.

Grand Lodge

So, if you Maximize a Scorching Ray, only one Ray is Maximized per target?

Grand Lodge

Benefit: The impact of your force spell is strong enough to knock the target prone. If the target takes damage, fails its saving throw, or is moved by your force spell, make a trip check against the target...

Emphasis on effect triggered by the "spell" not per damage.

1 trip attempt even vs multiple missiles at the same target.

Grand Lodge

Does Weapon Specialization only apply to one Ray per target?

Grand Lodge

Do you combine all damage, from all Rays, before applying Energy Resistance?

Grand Lodge

If you only get one Trip attempt, then why would you get additional trip attempts for each additional target?

Grand Lodge

blackbloodtroll wrote:
If you only get one Trip attempt, then why would you get additional trip attempts for each additional target?

Did the target take damage, fail a save, or get moved by a force effect from a spell?

If yes, you get a trip attempt.

If the magic missile is also dazing, so it grants a save as well as doing damage, you still only get 1 trip attempt. It adjudicated at the spell level, not the missile level.


Quote:
So, if you Maximize a Scorching Ray, only one Ray is Maximized per target?

Yes, I think the FAQ would imply this personally.

Quote:
Does Weapon Specialization only apply to one Ray per target?

Weapon specialization is a feat that applies to each damage roll and is never actually tied to the action or the spell as a unit. Unlike sneak attack or toppling spell which are enhancements to whole actions/spells, so I would interpret the FAQ as not applying similarly to this. But pretty vague.

Quote:
Do you combine all damage, from all Rays, before applying Energy Resistance?

I don't think the FAQ speaks to this one way or the other. It's talking about application of spell-side enhancements and features and such. Energy resistance is originating from the other side of the equation, the target. It just seems silent on the issue IMO/non applicable, but there may be other rules elsewhere covering it.

Quote:
If you only get one Trip attempt, then why would you get additional trip attempts for each additional target?

I don't think you do anymore. That's why I said "The FAQ is stricter than I remember." I think it implies you get one trip roll against one target total.

Grand Lodge

Why exactly are we equating the Trip attempt from Toppling Spell, to Sneak Attack?

It is not precision damage.

Didn't Mark Siefter explicitly say that FAQs apply to what they say they do, and not anything else?

What is the connection here?


Quote:
Why exactly are we equating the Trip attempt from Toppling Spell, to Sneak Attack?

They both trigger on damage, its the same underlying issue and source of problem. And nothing in particular about the FAQ seems to logically have to do with the precision part of it, rather it seems pretty obviously intended to be addressing the "multiple triggering bonuses" aspect of it.

And stuff like toppling spell obviously wasn't written for niche cases like this, so this is our best hint at what the intention was here. But if you want to ignore it because it's not precisely the same named ability, that's your prerogative.

Shadow Lodge

There is no connection, That FAQ is relevant only to sneak attack, and it was only applied to sneak attack because sneak attack is precision damage. It is the straw man argument always brought to the table any time someone has a question about whether or not various on damage effects can be triggered multiple times by magic missile. It is always wrong and always irrelevant.

Toppling spell isn't triggered by the spell, but by the effects of the spell, ie damage, failed save, or movement. Each time any of those events happens, due to a single spell effect (ie missile, ray, bust etc...) a new trip attempt is allowed.

Shadow Lodge

Crimeo wrote:
Quote:
Why exactly are we equating the Trip attempt from Toppling Spell, to Sneak Attack?

They both trigger on damage, its the same underlying issue and source of problem. And nothing in particular about the FAQ seems to logically have to do with the precision part of it, rather it seems pretty obviously intended to be addressing the "multiple triggering bonuses" aspect of it.

And stuff like toppling spell obviously wasn't written for niche cases like this, so this is our best hint at what the intention was here. But if you want to ignore it because it's not precisely the same named ability, that's your prerogative.

it actually makes perfect sense for the FAQ to be about the precision aspect. Lets try a real world example. If you carefully take aim and then shoot someone 5 times with a semi-automatic pistol, only your first shot will land where you aim because both recoil and the targets physical response to being shot will significantly reduce your accuracy and lower the stopping power of later rounds.

Grand Lodge

MoS,
You have a penchant for RAW as you advocated for it in the face of common sense in the smite evil with magic missile thread.

The wording here is unambigous. The metamagic is on the spell not the missile.

Did the target take damage, get moved, or fail a save vs a force effect? If yes, you get a trip attempt from the SPELL.

Grand Lodge

If it's only one per spell, than it's only once, period.

You can't have it both ways, and use a Sneak Attack FAQ as your "evidence".


Quote:
it actually makes perfect sense for the FAQ to be about the precision aspect. Lets try a real world example. If you carefully take aim and then shoot someone 5 times with a semi-automatic pistol, only your first shot will land where you aim because both recoil and the targets physical response to being shot will significantly reduce your accuracy and lower the stopping power of later rounds.

It also makes sense for it to be about multiple bonuses being a significant balance issue.

At worst, ambiguous rules as well as ambiguous FAQ applicability both.

And without the FAQ, it would go back to definitely being a trip on each separate creature, but not at all clearly multiple trips on a single creature, which is the question in the OP. So okay, switching to recommending a FAQ flag then.

Shadow Lodge

Grey_Mage wrote:

MoS,

You have a penchant for RAW as you advocated for it in the face of common sense in the smite evil with magic missile thread.

The wording here is unambigous. The metamagic is on the spell not the missile.

Did the target take damage, get moved, or fail a save vs a force effect? If yes, you get a trip attempt from the SPELL.

Break it down for me exactly how you're parsing it to come to that conclusion. I am happy to entertain your interpretation, I just can't understand how you came to it. And Please for the love of all that is sacred, try to do so without citing the sneak attack FAQ Even if it was meant to be a balance point (which I agree it probably was) it is a balance point for multiple sneak attacks only and there fore not relevant to any other situation in which you might receive a benefit applied to multiple effects of a spell.

I come to my conclusion because of this:

Quote:
Benefit: The impact of your force spell is strong enough to knock the target prone. If the target takes damage, fails its saving throw, or is moved by your force spell, make a trip check against the target, using your caster level plus your casting ability score bonus (Wisdom for clerics, Intelligence for wizards, and so on). This does not provoke an attack of opportunity. If the check fails, the target cannot attempt to trip you or the force effect in response.
And this: [qoute]For every two caster levels beyond 1st, you gain an additional missile—two at 3rd level, three at 5th, four at 7th, and the maximum of five missiles at 9th level or higher.If you shoot multiple missiles, you can have them strike a single creature...

Multiple Missiles Ergo Multiple Impacts and Multiple Damage Rolls = Multiple Trip Checks.

Essentially every time a missile hits (read Impacts if you need to)you must check the feat, the feat then asks; was damage dealt, a save failed, or the target moved? If yes, then trip, if no, then don't.

Grey_Mage wrote:

MoS,
You have a penchant for RAW as you advocated for it in the face of common sense in the smite evil with magic missile thread.

Let me shed some light on this statement:

I am myself a d20 and pathfinder compatible designer. As such it is very important to me to have a thorough understanding of how people read and understand the rules especially in instances where I read them in a way that is clearly different from some one else and would have significant impact on the way they or I play the game were an official ruling to come down on one side of the argument or another. The more I can understand how different interpretations arise the more likely I am to be able to avoid those kinds of issues when writing my own content. Do I think its possible to avoid these conflicts entirely, of course not, but I do think a vast majority of what is wrong could have been caught earlier on if understanding how rules are read was given a higher priority when generating new content.

So please, for my sake and for the sake of any like me, if at all possible use explicit citations from the PRD whether its in the rules for applying feats to spells, the feat, or the spell itself. But if the only support you can provide for your argument is the FAQ for sneak attack, say that too, but understand why we argue that it's inapplicable.

Silver Crusade

Crimeo wrote:

Okay fine, you made me go look it up.

From the FAQ:

Quote:

Sneak Attack: Can I add sneak attack damage to simultaneous attacks from a spell?

No. For example, scorching ray fires simultaneous rays at one or more targets, and the extra damage is only added once to one ray, chosen by the caster when the spell is cast. Spell-based attacks which are not simultaneous, such as multiple attacks per round by a 8th-level druid using flame blade, may apply sneak attack damage to each attack so long as each attack qualifies for sneak attack (the target is denied its Dex bonus or the caster is flanking the target).

^ I.e. spell based attacks that hit simultaneously not applying damage-triggered bonuses more than once. This is actually more strict than I remember it being, and would translate to an entire toppling magic missile spell only getting ONE trip attempt on ONE target, total.

Okay, this is a stupid ruling, no offense to you for posting it, you didn't make it. Why is it that with Scorching Ray, I only get Sneak Attack on the first ray, but with Rapid Shot, by the level I could fire 2 Scorching Rays with Sneak Attack, I could fire 3 arrows, each one getting Sneak Attack. Or does the FAQ intend to make it to where Sneak Attack can only work once a round?

On the issue at hand, it's obviously five missiles, five impacts, even on the same person. If it weren't, then it would be like Burning Hands, where it was 1d4+1 points of force damage, increased every 2 levels.

Grand Lodge

Crimeo wrote:
Quote:
This is incredibly simplified, but if each missile has 1 force behind it, then if three missiles hit then you're hit by 3 force. Now I'm not saying I have a horse in this race at all, I'm just saying if you're hit by three things equally hard then you're expending three times as much force to remain standing as if you were hit by just one of those things.

Not necessarily. Imagine two hitting you from opposite directions, they wouldn't push you down at all. And since magic missiles are homing missiles, they should never be assumed to travel in straight lines anyway.

2 missiles could also add up to a resultant vector of 1 force if they hit at exactly 120 degrees from one another around the person.

Plus, as you point out, magic cannot necessarily be assumed to follow physics by default anyway.

Let me bold the important part of my sentence for you...


Quote:
Okay, this is a stupid ruling, no offense to you for posting it, you didn't make it. Why is it that with Scorching Ray, I only get Sneak Attack on the first ray, but with Rapid Shot, by the level I could fire 2 Scorching Rays with Sneak Attack, I could fire 3 arrows, each one getting Sneak Attack. Or does the FAQ intend to make it to where Sneak Attack can only work once a round?

One of the above posters did at least provide a plausible argument for it being precision based. Since the rays all actually fly out literally simultaneously, you maybe can only focus your aim on one of them with precision. But 3 rapid shot arrows are not simultaneous but spready out over your action, so maybe you can focus on each.

Not great game design still in my opinion, but potentially explainable realistically.

Quote:
Let me bold the important sentence

You're right, that is the important sentence. If somebody simplifies away the critical information for the issue, that can lead to the incorrect conclusion being made. Force vectors are composed of force and direction, and if you throw out literally half of the relevant info for the problem, then it shouldn't be surprising if you end up with the wrong answers.


Magic Missile is one spell.

People damaged by it are affected by a (singular) trip attempt.

It's not rocket science.

Whether it's one missile or two or five doesn't matter. Single casting, single trip (per target).

"Your spells with the force descriptor knock the affected creatures prone.

Benefit: The impact of your force spell is strong enough to knock the target prone. If the target takes damage, fails its saving throw, or is moved by your force spell, make [b]a[/] trip check against the target, using your caster level plus your casting ability score bonus (Wisdom for clerics, Intelligence for wizards, and so on). This does not provoke an attack of opportunity. If the check fails, the target cannot attempt to trip you or the force effect in response."

One mention of creatures (plural), but we have to notice that the sentence starts with "Your SPELLS" (plural), but nothing in the feat mentions (or even alludes to) multiple trips PER TARGET.


That's simply undefined, then, Alex, not negative evidence. At worst, it's GM fiat if going only by that text, could apply to many targets, could not, it doesn't say itself.

(If you are of the opinion that the FAQ logic should apply, then definitely only one target, but I think that's been argued against well enough that at best it's also GM fiat to apply that, not getting us anywhere more definitive)


Crimeo wrote:

That's simply undefined, then, Alex, not negative evidence. At worst, it's GM fiat if going only by that text, could apply to many targets, could not, it doesn't say itself.

(If you are of the opinion that the FAQ logic should apply, then definitely only one target, but I think that's been argued against well enough that at best it's also GM fiat to apply that, not getting us anywhere more definitive)

I think it's defined pretty clearly actually.

Two castings of Magic Missile results in two trip attempts.

Your SPELLS gain the benefit of this attack, but only once per casting (that's why I drew attention to the use of the letter 'a'-a singular use, not multiple ones).

There is text describing singular trip attempts per spell, so that is what it does. One trip per casting.

If people want to provided examples of text that allow for multiple trip attempts per casting, they are welcome to provide that text, but I don't see it in what I quoted.

It's like I have said all along, do what the rules say, if you are adding stuff, you are making up new rules.

(Like, Fireball doesn't have rules for setting you on fire, so it doesn't do it. Fly doesn't say it gives you wings, so you don't have wings, and so on).


Quote:
I think it's defined pretty clearly actually.

It says "target" but I objectively have plural targets. It is simply grammatically incorrect then for this issue.

It's not saying "first target" "one of your targets" or anything like that, which it would have to do to grammatically correctly and clearly apply to this situation. Instead, it's saying something flat out invalid, and thus has no clear interpretation for magic missile one way or the other.

If you asked "which was is the grocery store?" and I answered "Purple if what why pumpkin!" then you wouldn't say that that "should be interpreted as whatever the closest approximation is to a valid answer" No, you would just say it was entirely useless and that you were no better off than you were before.


Crimeo wrote:
Quote:
I think it's defined pretty clearly actually.

It says "target" but I objectively have plural targets. It is simply grammatically incorrect then for this issue.

It's not saying "first target" "one of your targets" or anything like that, which it would have to do to grammatically correctly and clearly apply to this situation. Instead, it's saying something flat out invalid, and thus has no clear interpretation for magic missile one way or the other.

If you asked "which was is the grocery store?" and I answered "Purple if what why pumpkin!" then you wouldn't say that that "should be interpreted as whatever the closest approximation is to a valid answer" No, you would just say it was entirely useless and that you were no better off than you were before.

It says target.

It says 'a' trip attempt.

Nothing unclear about it. I'm not going to question your understanding of it, I'm just pointing out that singular and plural are different things.

The text of the feat doesn't allow for multiple trip attempts, nor multiple targets for said trip effect. If you want to assert otherwise, all you have to do is show where it says that. One requirement, not a convoluted argument...

So if you think you can trip multiple targets with this, or produce multiple trips per spell, I was wondering what gave this impression? Is there an FAQ addressing this?


Quote:
It says target.

Full stop. Rest doesn't matter, because it's already grammatically invalid and does not apply to the situation at hand. Leaving us with no clear rules to work with.

Quote:
So if you think you can trip multiple targets with this, or produce multiple trips per spell, I was wondering what gave this impression? Is there an FAQ addressing this?

I'm changing my answer to "That is not guaranteed, but is within the realm of viable interpretation / GM fiat to fill the void of any clear rulings on the issue one way or the other."

GM deciding that it only trips one of the many targets is also within the realm of viable fiat.


Crimeo wrote:
Quote:
It says target.

Full stop. Rest doesn't matter, because it's already grammatically invalid and does not apply to the situation at hand. Leaving us with no clear rules to work with.

Quote:
So if you think you can trip multiple targets with this, or produce multiple trips per spell, I was wondering what gave this impression? Is there an FAQ addressing this?

I'm changing my answer to "That is not guaranteed, but is within the realm of viable interpretation / GM fiat to fill the void of any clear rulings on the issue one way or the other."

GM deciding that it only trips one of the many targets is also within the realm of viable fiat.

If you want to treat using the feat as written as if that was GM fiat, I guess you can...

I'm not really following what your trying to say though. I provided a quote from the feat and you said "it's already grammatically invalid".

How is the use of singular 'target' confusing? It's right there in print, unlike anything that supports the idea of 'targets' (which would require something like an 's').

Of course, we can go back and forth all day on this both thinking we are right, so I won't waste any more of anyone's time on this one.

1 to 50 of 92 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Toppling Spell + multiple Magic Missiles on the same target All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.