The force barrage spell states it targets "a creature you can see" and "hits automatically".
Concealment states "While concealed, you can still be observed, but you're tougher to target. A creature that you're concealed from must succeed at a DC 5 flat check when targeting you with an attack, spell, or other effect. If the check fails, you aren't affected."
So is force barrage subject to the flat check? If so, is it rolled for each shard, or does a target only roll once for the entire spell?
It is up to the table to decide which rule is more specific and would take precedence.
I would run it that the one spell (Force Barrage) takes precedence. So the shards all hit automatically. Concealment doesn't apply for that one spell.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Specific trumps general.
The description of Concealment is a general statement of how it works.
The Force Barrage statement 'hits automatically' Trumps Concealment.
|
5 people marked this as a favorite.
|
A different interpretation is that concealment works when you target, and you have to target before you can hit. The force thing you fire is unerring, but you may be aiming at the wrong mark.
The language "automatically hits" is there to let you know that the absence of an attack roll or saving throw is 100% intentional. It doesn't do anything to overcome concealment.
I would agree that you still need to make the flat check. While I can see the other perspective when you cast Force Barrage at something you are still targeting it.
Hence, I agree with Megistone and SuperParkouio.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
An excerpt from FORCE BARRAGE
You fire a shard of solidified magic toward a creature that you
can see. It automatically hits and...
Concealed: Fog or similar obscuration makes you difficult to see and target.
Hidden: A creature you’re hidden from knows your location but can’t see
you.
Undetected: A creature you’re undetected by doesn’t know where you are.
.
.
All of the above have been copied from Player Core 1. You can see something Concealed, so it's auto hit. No flat check required.
You can't see someone Hidden or Undetected, so you can't even use Force Barrage.
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Sir Belmont the Valiant, II wrote: An excerpt from FORCE BARRAGE
You fire a shard of solidified magic toward a creature that you
can see. It automatically hits and...
Concealed: Fog or similar obscuration makes you difficult to see and target.
Hidden: A creature you’re hidden from knows your location but can’t see
you.
Undetected: A creature you’re undetected by doesn’t know where you are.
.
.
All of the above have been copied from Player Core 1. You can see something Concealed, so it's auto hit. No flat check required.
You can't see someone Hidden or Undetected, so you can't even use Force Barrage.
The phrase "automatically hits" doesn't have that kind of power. Acid Grip says the enemy is affected depending on the results of the target's Reflex save. Since it doesn't mention the result of a concealed flat check, we can ignore the flat check, right?
No, of course not. Concealed applies to every targeting effect except for area effects, and those few effects that ignore concealed actually tell you to ignore concealed. "Automatically hits" is just there to keep people from reading it and saying "Oh, they forgot to say what save it is. I'll just assume it's supposed to be a basic Reflex save."
If you fail the flat check with concealed, then the target is unaffected. No auto hit property of the spell can help with that.
SuperParkourio wrote:
The phrase "automatically hits" doesn't have that kind of power.
It does.
Quote: Acid Grip says the enemy is affected depending on the results of the target's Reflex save. Since it doesn't mention the result of a concealed flat check, we can ignore the flat check, right? Wrong. Concealed is not mentioned in the description of Acid Grip as it is a condition/status applied to the target, regardless of melee/spell type. This is a general circumstance. The fact that Force Barrage says "automatically hits" is a _specific_ factor that applies only to that particular spell.
Once again, Specific trumps General.
SuperParkourio wrote: Sir Belmont the Valiant, II wrote: An excerpt from FORCE BARRAGE
You fire a shard of solidified magic toward a creature that you
can see. It automatically hits and...
Concealed: Fog or similar obscuration makes you difficult to see and target.
Hidden: A creature you’re hidden from knows your location but can’t see
you.
Undetected: A creature you’re undetected by doesn’t know where you are.
.
.
All of the above have been copied from Player Core 1. You can see something Concealed, so it's auto hit. No flat check required.
You can't see someone Hidden or Undetected, so you can't even use Force Barrage.
The phrase "automatically hits" doesn't have that kind of power. Acid Grip says the enemy is affected depending on the results of the target's Reflex save. Since it doesn't mention the result of a concealed flat check, we can ignore the flat check, right?
No, of course not. Concealed applies to every targeting effect except for area effects, and those few effects that ignore concealed actually tell you to ignore concealed. "Automatically hits" is just there to keep people from reading it and saying "Oh, they forgot to say what save it is. I'll just assume it's supposed to be a basic Reflex save."
If you fail the flat check with concealed, then the target is unaffected. No auto hit property of the spell can help with that. "automatically hits a target you can see" does appear to beat concealed since concealed doesn't prevent you from being observed, aka seen.
Historically this has actually meant it auto hits in previous versions actually. Strictly speaking, you're correct because of how the targeting rules work, but logically it also makes sense that it autohits.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Automatically hitting is part of the effect of the spell, but if you fail to even target the enemy with the spell, you can't achieve the effect. Some spells circumvent this by saying they ignore concealment, and magic missile was such a spell in 1e. But 2e removed that language, taking that capability with it.
SuperParkourio wrote: Automatically hitting is part of the effect of the spell, but if you fail to even target the enemy with the spell, you can't achieve the effect. Some spells circumvent this by saying they ignore concealment, and magic missile was such a spell in 1e. But 2e removed that language, taking that capability with it. I'm not sure I definitely agree, but I like your reasoning.
____
Also I don't want to invent exceptions where none are explicitly stated. And historical case doesn't matter to me, at least general rule on targeting is more important*.
Another thing is: 'you can see' is not well defined in the rules. Even 'hidden' can be counted as 'seen'. (Check Reactive Strike against hidden targets) So what, now Force Barrage autohits even against invisible targets? No way. (And no, I won't draw a distinction between invisible targets 'in plain view' and hidden targets behind cover just because in colloquial language invisible target can't be seen, and target behind barrier hypothetically could. Mechanically they are almost the same, at least in the moment)
* And I also like to mess with FB, admittedly. No guaranteed autohits now, mwahahaha!
SuperParkourio wrote: Automatically hitting is part of the effect of the spell, but if you fail to even target the enemy with the spell, you can't achieve the effect. Some spells circumvent this by saying they ignore concealment, and magic missile was such a spell in 1e. But 2e removed that language, taking that capability with it. By the rules as written yes.
However it really should have a custom targeting callout that it ignores concealment given you aren't actually aiming and it's just a homing missile. As the spell is written it's "can see enemy, hit enemy" and concealment doesn't prevent you from seeing them, just aiming accurately.
Homing missile? Nothing in the spell indicates that the shard has homing properties.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Specific only trumps general when it is being specific about doing so.
Which means that not explicitly stating concealment does not apply is not specific enough to change the general rule that you make a flat check if your target is concealed from you.
The part of this debate which I always find interesting is that people are willing to bend the heck out of what "automatically hits" means in order to bypass concealment, but if the target is hidden/invisible they jump right on to twisting words so that "you can see" isn't take as literally as they want "automatically hits" to be.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
SuperParkourio wrote: Homing missile? Nothing in the spell indicates that the shard has homing properties. How else exactly does it always hit then?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
thenobledrake wrote: Specific only trumps general when it is being specific about doing so.
Which means that not explicitly stating concealment does not apply is not specific enough to change the general rule that you make a flat check if your target is concealed from you.
The part of this debate which I always find interesting is that people are willing to bend the heck out of what "automatically hits" means in order to bypass concealment, but if the target is hidden/invisible they jump right on to twisting words so that "you can see" isn't take as literally as they want "automatically hits" to be.
Personally I'm perfectly fine with invisibility eliminating every "you can see" option.
Guntermench wrote: SuperParkourio wrote: Homing missile? Nothing in the spell indicates that the shard has homing properties. How else exactly does it always hit then? Who knows? Maybe it's just too fast to dodge?
thenobledrake wrote: The part of this debate which I always find interesting is that people are willing to bend the heck out of what "automatically hits" means in order to bypass concealment, but if the target is hidden/invisible they jump right on to twisting words so that "you can see" isn't take as literally as they want "automatically hits" to be. This sidebar explains what "you can see" means as a targeting restriction.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I think RAW force barrage does not interact with concealed.
Concealed p. 442 PC1 wrote: You are difficult for one or more creatures to see due to thick fog or some other obscuring feature. You can be concealed to some creatures but not others. While concealed, you can still be observed, but you're tougher to target. A creature that you're concealed from must succeed at a DC 5 flat check when targeting you with an attack, spell, or other effect. Targets (under spells) p. 300 PC1 wrote: Some spells allow you to target a creature, an object, or something more specific. 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. At the GM's discretion, you can attempt to target a creature you can't see, as described in Detecting Creatures on page 434... While Concealed does say that you need a flat check to target a concealed creature, targeting for spells states that you only have to be able to see the target and Concealed is distinguished in the rules by Hidden, which means you can't see them. I would note that targeting for spells, p. 300, is more lenient than the general targeting rules under Effects, p. 426.
The real kicker is that you can target a creature you can't see by RAW if the GM allows. Under this circumstance I think the flat check (at a minimum) is appropriate.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Kelseus wrote: I think RAW force barrage does not interact with concealed.
Concealed p. 442 PC1 wrote: You are difficult for one or more creatures to see due to thick fog or some other obscuring feature. You can be concealed to some creatures but not others. While concealed, you can still be observed, but you're tougher to target. A creature that you're concealed from must succeed at a DC 5 flat check when targeting you with an attack, spell, or other effect. Targets (under spells) p. 300 PC1 wrote: Some spells allow you to target a creature, an object, or something more specific. 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. At the GM's discretion, you can attempt to target a creature you can't see, as described in Detecting Creatures on page 434... While Concealed does say that you need a flat check to target a concealed creature, targeting for spells states that you only have to be able to see the target and Concealed is distinguished in the rules by Hidden, which means you can't see them. I would note that targeting for spells, p. 300, is more lenient than the general targeting rules under Effects, p. 426.
The real kicker is that you can target a creature you can't see by RAW if the GM allows. Under this circumstance I think the flat check (at a minimum) is appropriate.
Bolded something you seem to have overlooked.
Guntermench wrote:
Personally I'm perfectly fine with invisibility eliminating every "you can see" option.
So am I.
I feel it's inconsistent to not treat concealed as "kinda can't see" if you're going to have the observation-interfering conditions apply in any case though, since as another poster linked to the game actually means "perceive with a precise sense" when it says "see" so there already exist in-game examples where something invisible is actually something you can "see" through another sense.
Context found everywhere other than people's presuppositions as to what a "magic missile" does indicates the game treats concealment as a chance that you can't "see" well enough for it to count.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
You are still observed is the thing. If it's by sight, per the description of the spell it should still hit because it doesn't really give a s*#+.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Guntermench wrote: You are still observed is the thing. If it's by sight, per the description of the spell it should still hit because it doesn't really give a s#&*. Except the spell doesn't state that it ignores targeting restrictions.
It is true that it does not care about defences which is the only thing "Automatically hits" can refer to in this context.
Thats the only specific thing, That it deals damage without the need for a spell-attack or save. You cannot target a creature behind a force wall or a glass pane regardless of their visibility.
For the same reason, RAW if you fail the concealment check, your aim fails and your spell does nothing since it does not have a target.
A specific description would be "You automatically succeed any flat check required due to the target being concealed" A line which exists in spells and feats alike but is not present in Force Barrage.
Hmm, Hard to see where one thing ends only for it to repeat again,
But yeah it could've said flies true to your aim or some other whimsical explanation instead of trying to have the same text its had since 1980.
ADnD 2e also had a similar thing in that it wasnt an auto-hit trough concealment (Unless you could identify the target whatever that now meant.)
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Guntermench wrote: So let me spell it out explicitly for you: rules as written you are correct but it's f#~+ing dumb. Or... it's not. I remind you that we are discussing imaginary non-existent thing. Which therefore can work in any imaginary way. So, using consistent ruling in absence of an exception, any spell must be magically "latched" on target by the will and concentration of a spellcaster. If they fail to do that correctly because of the concealment which impedes them, the magic of the spell fails. Incoming argument of a function is incorrect, the function fails and throws an exception.
SuperParkourio wrote: Bolded something you seem to have overlooked. Yes, but there is a clear conflict between the language for concealed and the language for targeting a spell. Since targeting a spell is a more specific rule than the general Concealed, it controls. It says that you can target a creature if you can see them, and you can see a Concealed creature, even if not as well as usual.
I think the issue is force barrage looks like an attack spell, needing a roll to hit, but it interacts with the rules more like a targeted spell, i.e. it automatically affects the target as long as you have line of sight and line of effect (and it meets the other requirements of the spell).
Consider the same scenario with a different spell. I want to target a creature with fear, do I have to make a flat check? There is no attack or hit, the creature is just affected if in range. As I said above, per RAW, you can even target a creature that is hidden from you as long as you have detected it.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Kelseus wrote: Yes, but there is a clear conflict between the language for concealed and the language for targeting a spell. Since targeting a spell is a more specific rule than the general Concealed, it controls. It says that you can target a creature if you can see them, and you can see a Concealed creature, even if not as well as usual. That's absurd. Or course targeting rules fully apply to spells too. That concealed wasn't mentioned doesn't mean anything at all (apart from they don't repeat all rules and conditions in all places).
Kelseus wrote: Consider the same scenario with a different spell. I want to target a creature with fear, do I have to make a flat check? Yes, absolutely.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
This thread still going?! ok.
Kelseus wrote: Yes, but there is a clear conflict between the language for concealed and the language for targeting a spell. Since targeting a spell is a more specific rule than the general Concealed, it controls. It says that you can target a creature if you can see them, and you can see a Concealed creature, even if not as well as usual.
The language for targeting with spells as opposed to other effects does not have this conflict that you mention. Nor do I find any reason to believe the quoted text is more specific than the rules regarding Concealed. Quite the opposite as I will mention further down. Lets actually look at the RAW in depth.
"PC1 Spells: Ranges, Areas, and Targets. p.300" wrote: Some spells allow you to target a creature, an object, or something more specific. 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. This is pretty much the only line of which is specific to targeting within this chapter and none of the terms are really defined or explained.
Later in Chapter. 8: Playing the game you actually see the definition and rules for these terms. Targeting with Effects,What an Effect is and yes Spells are defined as Effects. How if your targeting fails the Effect has no affect.
Senses, Line of sight, Perception and detection especially which state
"PC1: Perception and Detection p.399" wrote: Four main conditions indicate how well you can pinpoint and target a creature: observed, hidden, undetected, and unnoticed. A creature with the concealed or invisible condition is harder to find and target. The paragraph regarding Specific overrides General is also found within Chapter 8, Also on page 399.
"PC1: Game Conventions Sidebar, p.399" wrote: 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. While some special rules may also state the normal rules to provide context, you should always default to the general rules presented in *this chapter*, even if effects don't specifically say to. The convention exists in the same Chapter and Page as the rules stating that when you target a creature with concealment using an Effect. You must roll the flat check. And by default the only way to bypass this is trough abilities that explicitly say that you do, or with Effects that target areas instead of creatures.
Hopefully this clears it up.
Recent threads in Rules Discussion
|
