|
As the title.
Roughly "Can you use Magic Missile to Target a creature that is Hidden (but not Undetected) by the Invisibility spell?"
Targets 1 creature
You send a dart of force streaking toward a creature that you can see. It automatically hits and deals 1d4+1 force damage. For each additional action you use when Casting the Spell, increase the number of missiles you shoot by one, to a maximum of three missiles for 3 actions. You choose the target for each missile individually. If you shoot more than one missile at the same target, combine the damage before applying bonuses or penalties to damage, resistances, weaknesses, and so forth.
Some spells allow you to directly target a creature, an object, or something that fits a more specific category. The target must be within the spell’s range, and you must be able to see it (or otherwise perceive it with a precise sense) to target it normally. At the GM’s discretion, you can attempt to target a creature you can’t see, as described in Detecting Creatures on pages 465–467. If you fail to target a particular creature, this doesn’t change how the spell affects any other targets the spell might have.
If you choose a target that isn’t valid, such as if you thought a vampire was a living creature and targeted it with a spell that can target only living creatures, your spell fails to target that creature. If a creature starts out as a valid target but ceases to be one during a spell’s duration, the spell typically ends, but the GM might decide otherwise in certain situations.
Spells that affect multiple creatures in an area can have both an Area entry and a Targets entry. A spell that has an area but no targets listed usually affects all creatures in the area indiscriminately.
Some spells restrict you to willing targets. A player can declare their character a willing or unwilling target at any time, regardless of turn order or their character’s condition (such as when a character is paralyzed, unconscious, or even dead).
While you’re hidden from a creature, that creature knows the space you’re in but can’t tell precisely where you are. You typically become hidden by using Stealth to Hide. When Seeking a creature using only imprecise senses, it remains hidden, rather than observed. A creature you’re hidden from is flat-footed to you, and it must succeed at a DC 11 flat check when targeting you with an attack, spell, or other effect or it fails affect you. Area effects aren’t subject to this flat check.
A creature might be able to use the Seek action to try to observe you.
When you are undetected by a creature, that creature cannot see you at all, has no idea what space you occupy, and can’t target you, though you still can be affected by abilities that target an area. When you’re undetected by a creature, that creature is flat-footed to you.
A creature you’re undetected by can guess which square you’re in to try targeting you. It must pick a square and attempt an attack. This works like targeting a hidden creature (requiring a DC 11 flat check), but the flat check and attack roll are rolled in secret by the GM, who doesn’t reveal whether the attack missed due to failing the flat check, failing the attack roll, or choosing the wrong square.
A creature can use the Seek action to try to find you.
Cloaked in illusion, the target becomes invisible. This makes it undetected to all creatures, though the creatures can attempt to find the target, making it hidden to them instead. If the target uses a hostile action, the spell ends after that hostile action is completed.
Got into a debate. Seeking a third opinion. Is this a "Specific Overrides General" situation?
A core principle of Pathfinder is that specific rules override general ones. If two rules conflict, the more specific one takes precedence. If there’s still ambiguity, the GM determines which rule to use. For example, the rules state that when attacking a concealed creature, you must attempt a DC 5 flat check to determine if you hit. Flat checks don’t benefit from modifiers, bonuses, or penalties, but an ability that’s specifically designed to overcome concealment might override and alter this. If a rule doesn’t specify otherwise, default to the general rules presented in this chapter. While some special rules may also state the normal rules to provide context, you should always default to the normal rules even if effects don’t specifically say to.
Cheers!
Ok so we start with:
At the GM’s discretion, you can attempt to target a creature you can’t see, as described in Detecting Creatures on pages 465–467.
And then we go to pages 465-467 as suggested and look at how hidden creatures are handled:
A creature you’re hidden from is flat-footed to you, and it must succeed at a DC 11 flat check when targeting you with an attack, spell, or other effect or it fails affect you.
Which clearly describes what happens if you target a hidden creature.
So... to answer your first question. Yes, you can, at the GM's discretion and if you pass the DC11 flat check.
And uh, no to the second question I'm not sure how Specific Overrides General has any relevance here.
|
|
The "Specific Overrides General" argument is as follows:
0) Generally, attacks / spells can target Concealed / Hidden creatures pending a Flat Check
1) Magic Missile says "You send a dart of force streaking toward a creature that you can see."
2) Invisibility, well, makes you Invisible; as in unable to be "seen" (in-visible = "not visible")
3) Ergo, Specifically, Magic Missile cannot be used to target a (Hidden) Invisible creature, Overriding the General.
Which frankly, I think is a pretty strong case. Literally the first sentence of Magic Missile...
Specific Overrides General is an element of rules text. You should not get in the habit of applying it to descriptive or flavor elements.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
SOG is arguably a Central element. As towards empowering GMs to adjudicate their tables, which is arguably a Design Axiom of Pathfinder Second edition.
And the text cited ("You send a dart of force streaking toward a creature that you can see") is part of the same paragraph that says "It automatically hits and deals 1d4+1 force damage" - in fact it's the very next sentence.
Surely either both of these sentences have mechanical implications, or neither do?
Or can you make another case to exclude what you call this "descriptive or flavor element?"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
100% agreement with Squiggit here. The rules for targeting hidden creatures are quite clear.
|
|
thenobledrake,
The question is "Can you use Magic Missile to Target a creature that is Hidden (but not Undetected) by the Invisibility spell?"
Magic Missile says "You send a dart of force streaking toward a creature that you can see."
Thus, under the "Specific Overrides General" interpretation, the wizard cannot even attempt the flat check against their invisibly hidden foe...
...But it appears that Squiggit's (and others') interpretation amounts to: the GM decides.
Does that make sense?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Against a target you can see is the same language the rules for targeting in general use, which then go on to provide for rules for what to do if you want to try targeting something you can't see under certain circumstances.
There's no Specific vs General here.
The "GM's discretion" line comes from the rules for Targeting directly:
At the GM’s discretion, you can attempt to target a creature you can’t see, as described in Detecting Creatures on pages 465–467.
thenobledrake,
The question is "Can you use Magic Missile to Target a creature that is Hidden (but not Undetected) by the Invisibility spell?"
Magic Missile says "You send a dart of force streaking toward a creature that you can see."
Thus, under the "Specific Overrides General" interpretation, the wizard cannot even attempt the flat check against their invisibly hidden foe...
...But it appears that Squiggit's (and others') interpretation amounts to: the GM decides.
Does that make sense?
I'm no rules guy but thats my interpretation too.
I think it implies that sometimes you can, sometimes you can't but even if you can, you've got a 50% chance of missing.
Two followup questions (to the original question):
Q) How would you rule it at your table? May Target (flat check), or May Not Target (no flat check)?
Q) What is the Target was Hidden using "ordinary" Sneak / Hide actions (ie. not Invisible)? May Target, or May Not Target?
Cheers.
May target Flat Check. If they miss it isn't because they didn't see the target (that isn't that hidden or concealed does) it is because they didn't see it well (so the magic missiles strike the cloak, scabbard, sword or something else harmlessly)
This is how I describe it. I figure that it is better to let the players have the option to target as they know that they have a miss chance, than just saying "no targeting for you because I say so"
And yeah I agree with those above, rules are unambiguous on this concealed and hidden apply RAW.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IMO, no you cannot use MM vs a hidden target. I view the flat check as the simulation of you swinging blindly through a square. You don't see the target, you are just hoping to get lucky and hit them.
OTOH, magic missile specifically requires you to see the target in order to target it. Its effect is unlike other magical attacks that are more akin to a weapon Strike. So, no, in my games you have to actually be able to see the target to use magic missile. I don't really think this is an issue of specific over general, but YMMV
In my humble opinion the "that you can see" is an additional but more or less "fluff" reference to line-of-sight.
Just compare Force Bolt;
You fire an unerring dart of force from your fingertips. It automatically hits and deals 1d4+1 force damage to the target.
See any (additional) requirement for actually being able to "see the target" here in order to hit automagically?
So if you have a target begind a thick glass window you will have line-of-sight but no line-of-effect. Result: Can't use MM.
Now the target opens the window. Still line-of-sight and line-of-effect restored. Result: MM can be used.
Finally the target draws a wand (1 action), casts invisibility (2 actions) and ends its turn without moving (sneaking). Result: Target is hidden and can be targeted at DM discretion using a DC11 flat check.
|
|
Personal opinion:
A lot of the folks I play with seem to dabble between multiple systems, which, sometimes/often/usually means they mix and mash the rules between them. As a result, it's possible that some/many/most of them are unclear on the nuances between, for example, Hidden and Undetected, as part of the greater family of Detection Conditions.
For example, it could be argued that a question such as this is a little hazy on the nuance between the two conditions (Hidden and Undetected):
I view the flat check as the simulation of you swinging blindly through a square. You don't see the target, you are just hoping to get lucky and hit them.
While I think this is a fair adjudication to make on the fly to keep the game moving along, it begs the following related questions:
Q) Is a creature that is Hidden considered "unseen"?
Q) Is a creature that is Hidden considered "unheard"?
Qs) (All the Five Senses, and more, similarly...)
...
For my Face Case (Invisible and Hidden not Undetected), the answer to the first question is, reasonably, "Yes", especially given that first sentence of Magic Missile.
Even as there may be disagreement around whether that first sentence of Magic Missile is to be considered "Rules text" or "Flavor text", inasfaras we can even make such a distinction!
At my table, an off-the-cuff ruling is likely to be no you can't target them unless you know with certainty that they're there--such as when you're touching the unseen creature (as in First Edition).
I feel this fits within Squigget's interpretation of the rule.
I just feel like "Dont know for certain that they are there" is exactly what the Undetected state is for.
Hidden is you do in fact know for certain something is there. There's a 100% a creature is in that location, with no chance for that being incorrect.
You're just not sure who or what, or precisely where ... but they are detected.
I just feel like "Dont know for certain that they are there" is exactly what the Undetected state is for.
Hidden is you do in fact know for certain something is there. There's a 100% a creature is in that location, with no chance for that being incorrect.
You're just not sure who or what, or precisely where ... but they are detected.
Correct and my prime reason why I would allow a "spray and pray" DC11 approach for any ranged weapon or spell targeting a hidden creature.
Magic missile is special as it normally does not require an attack roll but uses "homing missiles" instead. However I do not see any reason why those missiles could not be used like dumbfire rockets in a spray and pray attempt.