A creature benefiting from concealment (created by anything) requires a DC 5 flat check in order to be accurately targeted.
Does this mean my magic missiles have a 25% chance to miss and do nothing at all, if my target has concealment?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Concealment is very powerful in pf2
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yup, concealment and hidden are both consistently useful in PF2e thank god.
Well until someone uses one of those pesky spells that negates concealed :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Concealment is much more powerful than it used to be in PF1. But it can also backfire as it doesn't distinguish between friendly and not-so-friendly effects. You can totally fail to affect an ally with a crucial heal spell if they have concealment.
Concealment is much more powerful than it used to be in PF1. But it can also backfire as it doesn't distinguish between friendly and not-so-friendly effects. You can totally fail to affect an ally with a crucial heal spell if they have concealment.
That's exactly what I am thinking. Potentially very bad news ...
Thank you for the answers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't say "Magic Missile never misses under any circumstance". It only says it "hits automatically", meaning it doesn't require an attack roll or check of any kind if taken by itself.
Any effect or action that targets a concealed creature requies a flat check. Including Magic Missile. The missile isn't the thing that's fooled by the concealment. The caster is fooled. So even if the spell is fool-proof, the caster can still miss.
But they explicitly can't miss, and specific overrides general.
If this was true, you'd be right. But that phrase never appears in the text of magic missile.
There are a number of spells that don't require a check to hit a target, but there's nothing really to suggest they're intended to be able to get around concealment.
If anything, concealment seems worded specifically to get around this, because concealment comes into play when you try to target something specifically. By the time you get to whether the spell hits automtically or requires a save or whatever, you're already past the targeting step.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The rules text is functionally identical to 1e and Starfinder here.
1e Magic Missile specifically says it ignores everything short of Total Cover and Total Concealment.
2e Magic Missile does not.
You're splitting some very fine hairs
There's no hair splitting involved in saying that this spell that doesn't mention ignoring concealment probably doesn't ignore concealment.
Concealed makes you more difficult to see, and Magic Missile requires you to see your target.
It really doesn't follow though: if it was about seeing the target, that's a perception check: if for some reason you can't see them, then you shouldn't be able to cast the spell instead of casting the spell and it doing nothing. The magic section under targets even says "At the GM’s discretion, you can attempt to target a creature you can’t see" so sight itself doesn't have to be a factor. That and concealed creatures are still observed so you never lose sight of them.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The bottom line is, if your opinion is that magic missile is affected by concealment, then you are right. If your opinion is that magic missile is not affected by concealment, then you are right. If OTOH, you try to say that either is definitive, then you are wrong. I think most reasonable players can see it both ways, even if they agree one or the other is more in line with their thinking. Thus table variation. The only people who are wrong are those you think their position is the only one that can be correct.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The bottom line is, if your opinion is that magic missile is affected by concealment, then you are right. If your opinion is that magic missile is not affected by concealment, then you are right. If OTOH, you try to say that either is definitive, then you are wrong. I think most reasonable players can see it both ways, even if they agree one or the other is more in line with their thinking. Thus table variation. The only people who are wrong are those you think their position is the only one that can be correct.
Yet, we have a order of events when it comes to spells/strikes
- determine the target- determine if the action hits (strike and save usually)
- determine and resolve effects / damage (with its own sub order for damage)
Without this being so clearly repeated in the book I would be inclined to agree, but the book is quite opaque that targeting happens after you comit to the action and before you determine hit/miss. Meaning that concealed / hidden specifically impact everything after choosing a target and committing to an action but before determing when something is a hit or a miss with a save would occur.
Otherwise, if you suggest they are merely guidelines. How do you accept someone rolling a strike and damage before choosing a target? "Hmmm didn't roll high enough to hit the big bad, so I will target her henchman instead", not sure I have ever met a GM who would be comfortable with that -laughs-
And if you rule as above, that also opens up every spell that doesn't require a save/strike to hit.
Take the following example:
You cast heal on an ally, but unbeknownst to you and your ally, they have come down with a case of being undead. The spell now clearly has a saving throw that must be made, so I don't think there is any argument that concealed/hidden would impact it, but they wouldn't when the ally wasn't undead?
Now I know I am being facetious, but that is kinda the point. You change how the order of combat progresses and then a lot of the game starts behaving weirdly.
I won't say I know for sure Paizo's RAI, but RAW there is more supporting concealed impacting magic missile than not. It isn't a matter of "well everyone can have an opinion".
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am going to go out on a limb here and say that I think that the 1e/3.X legacy of MM is almost certainly intended to be retained given that they did include "automatically hits" in the spell.
From my perspective, anything short of a condition or effect that totally prevents the creature from being targeted in the first place is going to do nothing to stop the MM. Concealment would be ineffective at my table versus this spell. The "automatically hits" portion really does not leave much room for interpretation here even if the PF2 rules are more lightweight describing how this bypasses some defenses the spirit of it never failing is still meaningfully described in the spell.
I can't say that is the most RAW approach to this but I feel it does a better job of being faithful to what MM has been and how people have expected it to work for the last 20+ years.
I fall in the concealment effects magic missile camp myself. Automatically hits =/= can't miss when you factor in user error. Any spell that is defended against by a save "automatically hits" after all, but concealment can still make the caster fail to target their target. And the rules do make the distinction between targeting and rolling to hit a target.
I think of it like a targeting laser. The magic missile Will hit whatever the laser (Wizards finger in this case) points at, the question becomes what does the laser end up lasing? Is it the intended target, or the tree that they are partially hidden behind?
Amusingly, the flavour text is the only place where it is implied that you must be able to see the target. The actual target entry of the spell is 1 creature like most any other spell and the mechanical portion of the text does not specify further, so in theory there's no reason you couldn't target it like any other spell, picking a square and attacking the proverbial darkness.
Amusingly, the flavour text is the only place where it is implied that you must be able to see the target. The actual target entry of the spell is 1 creature like most any other spell and the mechanical portion of the text does not specify further, so in theory there's no reason you couldn't target it like any other spell, picking a square and attacking the proverbial darkness.
Amusingly that means that, like any other spell, doing so would require you to roll any concealment/hidden etc... checks for magic missile, since Magic Missile has no wording that indicates you don't make such checks.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You change how the order of combat progresses and then a lot of the game starts behaving weirdly
There are examples of the order of operations not applying consistently. Why does a shield user get to see the damage before deciding to block, but a rogue has to declare Nimble Dodge before the attack roll?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You change how the order of combat progresses and then a lot of the game starts behaving weirdlyThere are examples of the order of operations not applying consistently. Why does a shield user get to see the damage before deciding to block, but a rogue has to declare Nimble Dodge before the attack roll?
Simple, because Nimble Dodge and Shield Block do not have the same trigger.
Nimble Dodge has a trigger of, "A creature targets you with an attack and you can see the attacker."
Shield Block has a trigger of, "While you have your shield raised, you would take damage from a physical attack."
One triggers on being targeted, thus before the success of the attack is known while the other triggers on being damaged, thus after damage is rolled.
That reinforces the rules adherence to the order in which checks are resolved.
Edit: Edited to reduce argumentative speech.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The point is the text is arbitrary. Nimble Dodge could have just as easily used similar language as a champion's retributive strike. Its not indicative of a consistent design methodology. I'm just saying that there are plenty of inconsistencies in methodology such that concealment vs. magic missile is argumentative.
Each to their own, but IMO, concealed does not impact magic missile. Concealed is a general rule while the spell is a specific instance. So, IMO, the text indicating that the spell automatically hits takes precedence with the only qualifier being that you can see the target. Concealed does not interrupt LoS. Failing the flat check does not change the visibility of the target. YMMV.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The point is the text is just arbitrary. Nimble Dodge could have just as easily used similar language as a champion's retributive strike.
Arbitrary, maybe, but still purposeful. They could have used different language, but they didn't and both you and I are clear on the implications of the decision they made.
Its not indicative of a consistent design methodology.
Even if we take this as true, inconsistency in design principles isn't the same thing as inconsistency in language. You might not like how nimble dodge works, but that's not an argument that the ability is ambiguous.
So it seems irrelevant to the topic at hand.
The point is the text is just arbitrary. Nimble Dodge could have just as easily used similar language as a champion's retributive strike. Its not indicative of a consistent design methodology. I'm just saying that there are plenty of inconsistencies in methodology such that concealment vs. magic missile is argumentative.
What about the wording of Retributive Strike is inconsistent with Shield Block? Both occur when an affected party would be damaged under certain circumstances. For Shield Block, you have to have your shield raised. For Retributive Strike both the attacker and attacked have to be within 15 feet of the Champion. So if you boil those down you have:
Cause: Damage being dealt to a target.
Target: You/Your Ally and their Attacker.
Requirement: Shield Raised/Both parties being within 15 feet.
Looks pretty consistent to me. Do the same for Nimble Dodge and you get:
Cause: You are targeted by an attack.
Target: You.
Requirement: You can see your attacker.
The rules even provide for any "inconsistencies" within themselves with the Specific Overrides General rule.
In this case we have the general rule of concealment causing the spellcaster to make a flat check or lose their spell. No language in the spell Magic Missile bypasses that check. We do have examples of feats and effects that do bypass concealment though.
Wild Winds Stance does so very clearly.
Bullseye allows a Rogue to ignore concealment with a thrown weapon attack.
Hunter's Aim allows a Ranger to ignore their prey's concealed condition for its attack.
There are more examples, and all of them clearly override concealment. Magic Missile does not.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are more examples, and all of them clearly override concealment. Magic Missile does not.
I don't know how much more clear the exception could POSSIBLY get though... it says,
"You send a dart of force streaking toward a creature that you can see. It automatically hits and deals 1d4+1 force damage."
That is a mechanical expression and it is a LOT more precise and specific than the general rules for Concealment are. Magic Missile only cares if you can see the target, it cares nothing for how WELL you can see it and it goes on to indicate that it just automatically hits if you meet the requirement of seeing them and... even if a creature does have concealment the spellcaster can absolutely still see them so it... it just works.
I feel that this confusion is all coming out because they had to scrap the previous wording of "total concealment or total cover" because neither of these things really exist in the same way. So they had to revise the spell and in an effort to reduce wordcount they just went with the simplest possible broadly-understood wording that they could... "automatically hits" which, by the way, seems to be a pattern for how they handle many Force Effects in general given that several other Spells also share this same wording that ALSO had to change from previous editions, that being, this kind of thing has been an intended FEATURE of many Force Effects since the beginning and, I feel, should perhaps reflect the way it worked in the long-long-ago.
There are more examples, and all of them clearly override concealment. Magic Missile does not.I don't know how much more clear the exception could POSSIBLY get though... it says,
"You send a dart of force streaking toward a creature that you can see. It automatically hits and deals 1d4+1 force damage."
That is a mechanical expression and it is a LOT more precise and specific than the general rules for Concealment are. Magic Missile only cares if you can see the target, it cares nothing for how WELL you can see it and it goes on to indicate that it just automatically hits if you meet the requirement of seeing them and... even if a creature does have concealment the spellcaster can absolutely still see them so it... it just works.
I feel that this confusion is all coming out because they had to scrap the previous wording of "total concealment or total cover" because neither of these things really exist in the same way. So they had to revise the spell and in an effort to reduce wordcount they just went with the simplest possible broadly-understood wording that they could... "automatically hits" which, by the way, seems to be a pattern for how they handle many Force Effects in general given that several other Spells also share this same wording that ALSO had to change from previous editions, that being, this kind of thing has been an intended FEATURE of many Force Effects since the beginning and, I feel, should perhaps reflect the way it worked in the long-long-ago.
I don't think, "It worked like this in 1st edition" is a good argument, since in 1st edition the Ranger had spell slots, the Bard was a half caster, the Champion was called a Paladin and had spell slots... etc...
This isn't 1st edition. And Magic Missile already works Much differently than it did. You get more missiles per action spent instead of only with higher spell levels.
Or would you argue that because Magic Missile in 1st only increased the number of missiles based on level that you don't get extra missiles for spending more actions in 2nd edition?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't compare Retributive Strike to Shield Block, I compared it to Nimble Dodge and I'm not arguing what the text says. I agree it is clear how each of them works. I'm saying the variations in the text represent a deviation in design methodology and therefore it is challenging to try and determine RAI by comparing unrelated rules such as these as a primer because of said inconsistency.
Magic missile is unique because it specifically says "It automatically hits." Now, we can argue whether that is exhaustive or only applies with respect to attack rolls, but neither is clear by the text. The point is that its not clear. Otherwise, this conversation wouldn't have lasted this long. Just IMO, the key text is the last part of Concealed which says, "A creature in a light fog bank is still observed even though it's concealed." It clearly establishes that you can see the target, albeit not clearly. The spell does not indicate a level of visual clarity, only that you can "see" it. Concealed still allows observation, therefore it doesn't affect the missiles. I do understand and appreciate the counter argument. I just don't agree with it. YMMV
|
|
It isn't JUST that it worked like that in PF1, it worked that way LITERALLY from the very first time it was printed all the way back in the late 70's...
Justifying that this has meaningfully changed because they rephrased it from using specific game terminology to using more understandable plain language is... a stretch.
I didn't compare Retributive Strike to Shield Block, I compared it to Nimble Dodge and I'm not arguing what the text says. I agree it is clear how each of them works. I'm saying the variations in the text represent a deviation in design methodology and therefore it is challenging to try and determine RAI by comparing unrelated rules such as these as a primer because of said inconsistency.
Magic missile is unique because it specifically says "It automatically hits." Now, we can argue whether that is exhaustive or only applies with respect to attack rolls, but neither is clear by the text. The point is that its not clear. Otherwise, this conversation wouldn't have lasted this long. Just IMO, the key text is the last part of Concealed which says, "A creature in a light fog bank is still observed even though it's concealed." It clearly establishes that you can see the target, albeit not clearly. The spell does not indicate a level of visual clarity, only that you can "see" it. Concealed still allows observation, therefore it doesn't affect the missiles. I do understand and appreciate the counter argument. I just don't agree with it. YMMV
This example of deviation in design methodology applies to two different effects with two different purposes, so there should be a deviation. One alters a creatures AC, and can make an attack miss completely or degrade a critical success to a success. The other provides DR against damage, but doesn't have any bearing on the other effects of an attack or alter success. With such different effects and ramifications, it would be far more weird if they did work exactly the same, wouldn't it?
I firmly disagree that, "Automatically hits," could be interpreted as being exhaustive. For one, the rules make a clear difference between targeting and finding the success of a check (hitting with an attack in this case). For two, we already have clear examples of effects that do bypass concealment with clear language. You'd have an argument imo if those didn't exist, but they do.
Also note that Concealment actually does not indicate that the magic missile misses, only that it doesn't affect the concealed creature. The magic missile struck something, it just wasn't it's intended target. Compare concealed creatures being saved by a bush to a fighter who can shield block a Magic Missile spell, and even gets to block ALL the missiles and not just one, since you combine the damage before applying resistance et al.
Edit to avoid Double Post:
It isn't JUST that it worked like that in PF1, it worked that way LITERALLY from the very first time it was printed all the way back in the late 70's...
Justifying that this has meaningfully changed because they rephrased it from using specific game terminology to using more understandable plain language is... a stretch.
The only stretch I see in this conversation is using irrelevant information, in this case how a spell designed by completely different people for a different if related game worked, to try to make a sound argument.
Paizo has evolved their ruleset from it's 3.x roots. Magic Missile evolved with it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, that's exactly my point... the wording of it changed as it had to but the spirit that "it cannot miss" hasn't. That's my point, and I am having a hard time restating how obvious to me it is that this is the case given that "automatically hits" was intentionally coded into nearly every Force Spell and those alone... almost like they were trying to communicate that it will always "automatically hit" or something...
We also cannot really view MM in a vacuum and assume it was designed without the intent to respect the context or history of the Spell either. If it doesn't work as MM has always worked then it should have been named something else so that people's expectations are not broken and I am 100% certain that Paizo is aware of the expectations that come to mind when someone hears or reads Magic Missile, it's just as iconic as Fireball or Lightning Bolt.
Table variation is fine for sure but if they had wanted to kill the decades of legacy expectations for the Spell then I think they would have simply omitted the phrasing that is in question.
Yes, that's exactly my point... the wording of it changed as it had to but the spirit that "it cannot miss" hasn't. That's my point, and I am having a hard time restating how obvious to me it is that this is the case given that "automatically hits" was intentionally coded into nearly every Force Spell and those alone... almost like they were trying to communicate that it will always "automatically hit" or something...
Table variation is fine for sure but if they had wanted to kill the decades of legacy expectations for the Spell then I think they would have simply omitted the phrasing that is in question.
I think you are looking at this the wrong way. The fact that you don't have to make a check, and the opponent doesn't make save is still plenty powerful. It's not like it means nothing.
What it doesn't mean is that it has no downside when compared to 1st edition.
In 1st, the only thing that could reliably stop a Magic Missile was a Shield spell, but it completely negated the magic missile. This changed in 2nd where both spells were rebalanced. In 1st you could get a maximum of 5 missiles. In 2nd edition you can shoot off 3 missiles at 1st level.
There has to be some downside to the upgrade that the spell got, right?
Legacy expectations went out the window with the Paladin imo. Sure, the spirit of the game remains. You still have fighters and rogues and wizards and all there are some dungeons and some dragons. But if legacy expectations were a reasonable argument then there would be non-typed bonuses, scaling Apex items that you are expected to get at relatively early levels, and nobody would play a Ranger seriously.
Readjust your expectations.
It isn't JUST that it worked like that in PF1, it worked that way LITERALLY from the very first time it was printed all the way back in the late 70's...
Justifying that this has meaningfully changed because they rephrased it from using specific game terminology to using more understandable plain language is... a stretch.
Yeah it is a strech. This is the problem with natural langauge rules systems. They should have been more clear. A change like this should have been highlighted. However the logic of the ruling is clear.
It may not have been a deliberate choice by the designers, but they have been pretty good with most things.
Magic Missile still has a special place in this edition of the game because of it's action economy, and that it is one of very few attack spells that doesn't require you to have a high casting stat.
|
|
Would you apply the Concealed condition against the heal spell vs undead? The spell does not require an attack roll, it just automatically effects the selected target. It is interesting that magic missile includes "automatically hits" language while heal doesn't mention it at all vs most targeted "offensive" magic that almost always requires an attack roll of some kind.
Would you apply the Concealed condition against the heal spell vs undead? The spell does not require an attack roll, it just automatically effects the selected target. It is interesting that magic missile includes "automatically hits" language while heal doesn't mention it at all vs most targeted "offensive" magic that almost always requires an attack roll of some kind.
Yes. And I would also apply concealed vs. a living ally to that same heal spell, because that is what concealed does.
Edit: Also saying that offensive magic almost always requires an attack roll is interesting. Any spell that requires a Save would like a word with you. So off the top of my head:
Electric Arc
Burning Hands
Fireball
Fear
Lightning Bolt
Blindness/Deafness
Phantasmal Killer
Paralyze...
Need I go on?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is all well and good, really I get it, concealment does what it says unless something else more specific overrides it... in this case that is MM stating upfront in the "mechanically important" bit of the Spell that it just automatically hits as long as you can see the target.
The reason Heal or nearly any other spell doesn't get to bypass concealment is because it doesn't have the exclusive benefit of an automatic hit that is described in the text and that has existed since the first time anybody saw the words "Magic Missile" in print. Also, yes, there is a balance to be considered here, that's a very fair point but that is already accounted for in these effects because they all seem to deal only d4 damage dice instead of the d6 or d8 that's dished out by other effects.
... in this case that is MM stating upfront in the "mechanically important" bit of the Spell that it just automatically hits as long as you can see the target.
But it doesn't say that, does it? It doesn't say that it automatically hits someone you can see. It just "automatically hits". Hitting is common language used to denote that a check made as a part of an attack was successful. But that's irrelevant where Concealment is concerned. Concealment doesn't deal with the success of a check, it deals with targeting. That is the difference that I believe you fail to see.
The reason Heal or nearly any other spell doesn't get to bypass concealment is because it doesn't have the exclusive benefit of an automatic hit that is described in the text and that has existed since the first time anybody saw the words "Magic Missile" in print. Also, yes, there is a balance to be considered here, that's a very fair point but that is already accounted for in these effects because they all seem to deal only d4 damage dice instead of the d6 or d8 that's dished out by other effects.
Again, what people saw at the first printing of Magic Missile is irrelevant, because that is not this printing of the rules. But addressing heal and other save based spells, why then are they subject to concealment if they don't require an attack roll? They don't "hit" an opponent, do they? So following your Magic Missile logic, wouldn't they not need to roll a flat check since they don't need to hit in the first place?
Explain the logic that helps you bridge that gap to me and maybe we can get somewhere.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. And I would also apply concealed vs. a living ally to that same heal spell...
Fair enough, I just disagree
To be fair, electric arc is a multi-target spell which makes it slightly different than most targeted spells. burning hands, fireball, lightning bolt are AoE so not applicable because they are specifically exempted from the Concealed condition. I think my issue with the other is that they don't send a physical manifestation <semi/tangible "thing"> towards the target. They manifest within the target itself. Though, I admit that with that perspective, it would negate the comparison to heal so I guess that would also be a poor comparison.
But it doesn't say that, does it?
Actually it does in the sentence immediately preceding...
"You send a dart of force streaking toward a creature that you can see. It automatically hits and deals 1d4+1 force damage."Again, the last part of Concealed specifies that you can still see the target (Observed) even if it has concealment.
I gave this considerable thought when 2E first launched and I am comfortable with my adjudication that Concealed does not apply to magic missile. For the readers, just consider both sides of this argument and make the decision that best fits your game group. Good luck!
EDIT--also for reference is the Specific Overrides General rules on page 444 of the CRB...
"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."
In this case, I believe that the Concealed condition is a general rule that applies broadly to the combat system, while magic missile is a specific rule who's automatic hit clause would be a specific override.
Yes. And I would also apply concealed vs. a living ally to that same heal spell...Fair enough, I just disagree
To be fair, electric arc is a multi-target spell which makes it slightly different than most targeted spells. burning hands, fireball, lightning bolt are AoE so not applicable because they are specifically exempted from the Concealed condition. I think my issue with the other is that they don't send a physical manifestation <semi/tangible "thing"> towards the target. They manifest within the target itself. Though, I admit that with that perspective, it would negate the comparison to heal so I guess that would also be a poor comparison.
But it doesn't say that, does it?Actually it does in the sentence immediately preceding...
"You send a dart of force streaking toward a creature that you can see. It automatically hits and deals 1d4+1 force damage."
Again, the last part of Concealed specifies that you can still see the target (Observed) even if it has concealment.I gave this considerable thought when 2E first launched and I am comfortable with my adjudication that Concealed does not apply to magic missile. For the readers, just consider both sides of this argument and make the decision that best fits your game group. Good luck!
Fair dues on burning hands, fireball and lightning bolt. The point was that they are all spells that don't need to hit, not that they are relevant to the concealed conversation.
Fair enough about the visual thing. I usually skip the first sentence or two in a spell, as it's more a description of what the spell does rather than what I typically consider rules text. But I will also point out that the sentence, "You send a dart of force streaking toward a creature that you can see," does not indicate that it will always strike that creature. After all, you can say the same thing about an arrow. The process of targeting and finding the success of an effect then determines the outcome. Magic Missile bypasses the second, but does not bypass the first. That is the soul of my argument.
If that's your opinion on the matter then I have done all I can to persuade you. Just be aware that making Magic Missile ignore concealment does mess heavily with the balance of the spell. Consider that other classes have to spend feats to accomplish what you are allowing a 1st level common spell to do by default, and always in limited fashion. It makes the spell an auto prepare in many cases, since Concealment is pretty common and Force damage is one of the least resisted damage types.
If that's cool with you, then have at it.
Edit to address Edit
I see no reason to believe that magic missile satisfies the specific overrides general clause. It clearly doesn't mention not targeting a creature, so doesn't clash with concealment at all.
Again, targeting happens before determining degree of success / effect.
Bringing up specific vs general is irrelevant as it doesn't specifically override how the spell targeting mechanics. Again, automatically hits has no impact on the targeting element of play.
I repeat my example from before, if you think the order of combat resplution doesn't matter... do you think it is okay to roll an attack roll and THEN choose your target dependant on what you rolled.
There are plenty of spells that have had old effects reduced to become more effective. Regeneration is a great example of this when comparing it to 1es version.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are also quite a few spells which tell you to ignore concealment (e.g. True Strike), which further makes it clear that this isn't the default state of affairs. If Magic Missile was meant to ignore concealment, the spell would have to say that.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If Magic Missile was meant to ignore concealment, the spell would have to say that.
Perhaps by adding "automatically hits" the author assumed that settled the issue. It certainly wouldn't be the first time what they wrote and what they meant or what they wrote and what we understand were two different things.