Is Magic Missile Affected By Concealment? (Pathfinder Rule Reminder #36)

[@HowItsPlayed]

For more information see: Perception in Pathfinder: kzbin.info/www/bejne/b4nQkGR_d8mIbKM Pathfinder Magic Part 6 - Casting and Spell Attacks: kzbin.info/www/bejne/d4vWn4eBj7mJpdU This video is sponsored by Roll For Combat, a Paizo official actual play podcast! Check out all their great content here: rollforcombat.com/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Want to help support the channel? Get your name listed at the end of my videos by joining my Patreon : ▶️ www.patreon.com/HowItsPlayed/ Thank me with a cup of coffee! ▶️ ko-fi.com/HowItsPlayed

[@jonathanh7252]

Devil's Advocate: Specific rule trumps generic rules. The specific rule here is that if you can see it, it automatically hits.

[@Aw3som3-117]

Interesting devil's advocate, and definitely the strongest argument for people who see it the other way. The main counter point being that it still does automatically hit, you just didn't target the enemy you wanted in the first place. Keep in mind that you roll the flat check is not to see if you hit the creature, but if you can successfully target it in the first place.

[@RCCraigoOnline]

I go with “creature you can see” as being creature that is Observed by the caster. A Concealed target is still Observed, so magic missile bypasses concealed. If the target was hidden or unseen, then nope, can’t target that creature with magic missile.

[@5yncr0n1z3d]

The first line in the magic missile spell description sounds like the clincher for me. "You send a dart of force streaking towards a creature that you can see." If a creature is concealed it is difficult to see and so justifies the DC5 flat check for an otherwise unmissable spell from a universe logic point of view. Great Video as ever Dave :)

[@swingspst]

I completely agree and you beat me to the punch. It is an issue of 'seeing' which is exactly what concealed makes difficult and its purpose for the condition. As a GM I would call for the flat check

[@fishworshipper]

Counterpoint: If a creature is just Concealed, then it's still Observed, which means you can see it. Ergo, the spell whose entire meaning for existence is "don't miss" won't miss.

[@swingspst]

@@fishworshipper Like Dave explained, by RAW the flat check is called for even vs MM due to targeting rules. If a concealed creature is easy enough to be seen for a MM caster to target it without a flat check then it should be just as easy to see and target for any other ranged attack. If that’s the case then why have the concealed condition exist at all? The point of concealed is that, even though you “can be observed” (doesn’t say you are observed) you are still harder to see clearly such that it could cause the attacker to miss. To his point though if you chose to not go by the RAW that is the GM prerogative.

[@fishworshipper]

@@swingspst There is a difference between an arrow shot by a bow and a Magic Missile. An arrow shot by a bow cannot course-correct. An arrow shot by a bow does not home in on its target. A Magic Missile doesn't bonk into stonework because your arm twitched or you glanced the wrong way mid-cast. If you can see the target well enough to cast Magic Missile at all, you can see it well enough to hit with Magic Missile.

[@swingspst]

@@fishworshipper How you want to flavor what the missile or arrow does after launch or cast is just that, flavor. That all happens AFTER targeting which was when the concealment came into play so, again, by RAW you roll the flat check. If you don’t want to GM that way, that’s your call, and we can agree to disagree. I mostly GM society games and play by RAW.

[@markadkins1842]

I didn't realize this dilemma existed! Now I've got some thinking to do!

[@lostsanityreturned]

Concealed also applies to heals and buffs for example. Personally I like RAW, in this case. It keeps the rule consistent and allows concealed and hidden to be strong.

[@FireBowProductions]

My interpretation is that if it requires a Roll to hit, that's when you roll the Flat Check. As Magic Missile doesn't require a roll to hit, it's unaffected. The Concealed condition states that you can still be Observed (meaning that it's still seen) but harder to target. I take this as you can still target it, but when you attempt to hit it with something, you may misjudge the exact location due to whatever is giving the Concealed condition. You could also go with the standard Specific over General clause with Magic Missile being a specific instance and the Concealed condition being the general instance.

[@hodldawg]

I would have ruled the opposite. MM is a specific spell and concealment is a broad rule. Specific rules beat broad rules. I think MM required an attack roll in 4e. I may be misremembering though. I only played it a couple times and i wasn't ever a wizard.

[@12thLevelSithLord]

It did at first, but then there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth so they changed it.

[@rylandrc]

Wouldn't this be a case where Specifics of the Magic Missile spell overrides the General of the Concealed condition? Specific (MM): "It automatically hits" General (Concealed): "If the check fails, the attack, spell, or effect doesn't affect you." Specific Overrides General (Chapter 9): "If two rules conflict, the more specific one takes precedence."

[@brianlane723]

Or does the specifics of concealed override the general of magic missile?

[@rylandrc]

@@brianlane723 Magic Missile is more specific than Concealed because it only applies to one thing (the magic missile spell), whereas Concealed applies to many effects and spells that can make creatures concealed.

[@thedruski85]

Love your videos. Recently changing over to PF after DMing D&D for 25 years and your videos have all been a huge boon. That being said, this is the first time I've felt like I should comment. Magic Missile is definitely the "I don't want to risk missing" spell of ttrpgs. And it is exactly that. In combat, it just hits the targets you can see. But what the concealed condition seems to imply is that you CANNOT clearly see your target, hence the flat check. I've seen that there are a ton of ways to ignore the concealed condition, so why give it to this spell free of charge? It's not that Magic Missile missed its target, it's that your target wasn't where you THOUGHT they were. It didn't miss; it hit the spot the spellcaster believed the enemy to be hidden.

[@63worldseries]

Magic Missile ALWAYS hits. Even the darkness!

[@TarEcthelion]

... are you a Sorcerer of Light?

[@swingspst]

Darkness: A creature or object within darkness is hidden or undetected unless the seeker has darkvision or a precise sense other than vision (Special Senses are on page 465). Hidden: you can't tell precisely where it is. Vision is a precise sense. If you can't see it how are you hitting it with magic missile without having darkvision? (requirement of the spell is to see the target)

[@HowItsPlayed]

"I ATTACK THE DARKNESS!!"

[@TheL0rd0fSpace]

I could be incorrect, but I've interpreted the "three step process" in 4:10 the same as you, except I interpret Concealment as adding a 4th step, between 1 and 2. So, the 1st step is to be able to target the creature (by being able to see it, being within range, etc), then 2nd is to overcome Concealment, then 3rd is to overcome their AC/save, then 4th is to roll damage.

[@cheezeofages]

Huh, one would think that the general rule of thumb of 'specific trumps general' would apply here. Eh, I'd rule it hits. That's kinda the spell's entire gimmick and it doesn't unbalance anything. The explanation makes sense though.

[@TheUnluckyEverydude]

I mean, if something makes the effort to try to hide from something shooting magic missile, I feel like I owe it to the hider to make the magic missile roll a *5* to hit. Like, that doesn't even feel like a barrier.

[@JacksonOwex]

or a perception check, which would actually be harder to do, to be able to see the target, if not they need to pick another one!

[@qwertyasdf9290]

For me if they're hidden they get a flat check. But if they're just concealed, that's auto hit. It's a homing missile after all.

[@scrip3799]

The *RAW* does not disambiguate either interpretation over the other; it says *both* the general rule that concealment requires a flat check *and* the specific spell text "it automatically hits" "a creature that you can see". A concealed creature is exactly seen and Observed, not Hidden/unseen, so it's a matter of *interpretation,* not "RAW", that every GM necessarily has to judge whether the spell text is intended to be *a specific rule overriding* the general rule. Specific rules overriding general rules are perfectly valid RAW.

[@kas746]

Really like your logical analysis and most importantly also take into consider the history and core design concept of magical missile.

[@HowItsPlayed]

Thanks!

[@nathanhoshal3250]

Thanks for giving reasons for both interpretations (as usual).

[@jasonpcrawfordauthor]

Makes sense. If you're aiming the magic missile at the wrong thing, it can't hit properly.

[@tabunga4669]

People get Sooo butt hurt over this

[@jasonpcrawfordauthor]

@@tabunga4669 Sounds like something a GM might want to be clear about before the game starts, in session 0. Just because so many people feel the other way.

[@tabunga4669]

@@jasonpcrawfordauthor didn't know it was an issue til we come across it. We played at GEN con when it came out and eventually at home. We were new

[@Fionor01]

This swings bothways - PCs can be targets of Force Barrage too and it still hurts at higher levels. If they can apply concealment on themselves, they have chance to avoid it. And after all, "creature you can see" condition means that it's hard to see that creature - so you have to check it.

[@MrMetFanSC]

I would definitely disagree with you on changing the rules. It is pretty clear to me, Magic Missile automatically hits the target, to target a concealed, hidden or undetected creature you have to do the check. If you can't target the creature Magic Missile can't hit it because what you told it to target isn't there. I definitely agree with RAW more so than your homebrew personally. I must admit, why would you do this for concealed when hidden would be the exact same mechanic. Essentially both are saying well I think the target is in Y, attack that spot. Magic Missile hits that spot, if you were wrong at where they are it doesn't correct that for you. So does that mean a hidden target you would just prevent using the Magic Missile on at all? Edit: One thing I would add is I probably would not make the person roll for all three times, either they identified the target or didn't. Though I would also probably let them choose that before rolling. on a 25% chance they will likely hit twice so if they want to take it they can, or they could roll once. So long as they said so beforehand I would probably let them do one roll or 3 as they felt better about.

[@THEdeadlynightshade1646]

I think the issue is concealed means you're harder to make out but they can still see you as you are still observed vs hidden meaning your not observed

[@sandkiller]

Best answer i think.

[@RollingSoloRPG]

I've noticed that I hit the like button before any of you videos even start! Great content!

[@HowItsPlayed]

Thanks! I appreciate that! :)

[@blaydsong]

The way this one is written, it could easily be translated either way, but I'd have to disagree with the declared RAW for this rule. My reasoning for this is simple: Magic Missile states: "You send a dart of force streaking toward a creature that you can see." The Concealed Condition states: "You can still be observed..." Now, I realize that it also says that you are tougher to hit, but if it automatically hits, the flat check seems irrelevant. As an added note, the Hidden Condition states: "While you're hidden from a creature, that creature knows the space you're in but can't tell precisely where you are." Meaning, that they can not target you, so Magic Missile is ineffective here. As you said, though. It is up to the GM to decide how to rule something like this.

[@okagisama]

I'd objet it to be second in line as the most famous spell, fireball wins over.

[@laki7480]

Hi, a question popped from a discord server. Would a rangers precision damage trigger on a magic missile hit. I say yes, some say the wording for hit is figuratively. I see it as a spell attack that skips rolling to hit, then again, it lacks attack trait so it is abit unclear

[@drunkenhobo64]

Magic missile has no spell attack. It just does damage with no save. So I don't think the precision damage would apply.

[@andrewthornley5172]

I am a bit surprised this was even a question. MM always hits as long as you can see the target or even a portion of the target which is what concealed is. It isn't hidden or undetected. I am with you on this one.

[@Aw3som3-117]

Seeing "a portion of the target" would be cover. Concealed is a much more vague concept that might mean you can only see an outline, or perhaps there's swirling fogs that leave them visible sometimes but not others, almost popping in and out of your sight. For example, in heavy fog I could maybe "see" that a car is coming, which would make it "observed" in game terms, but being able to tell exactly where it is would still be difficult, especially when it comes to depth. This is simulated very nicely in game by making concealed not give a circumstance bonus to AC like cover does, but rather to make it difficult to target them in the first place. Remember, the game may use terms we're familiar with to make things easier to understand, like "Observed", "Concealed", etc., but ultimately these don't use the common definition of the words. They are defined in the rules, and have specific gameplay implications on purpose.

[@WuffyWolffoot]

Very simple answer; read the spell description. "The missile strikes unerringly, even if the target is in melee combat, so long as it has less than total cover or total concealment. Specific parts of a creature can’t be singled out. Objects are not damaged by the spell." If the target is in total cover or total concealment, they cannot be seen and therefore cannot be targeted with the spell as you lack line of effect and line of sight respectively.. you cannot just 'cast Magic Missile into the darkness' as the spell requires a target creature.

[@HowItsPlayed]

I believe you may be referencing 1st edition. I may not have spelled it out clearly, but this series covers 2nd edition.

[@WuffyWolffoot]

@@HowItsPlayed Ahh! My mistake.. even so the spell does that 'a creature that you can see' and 'automatically hits'. Personally I'd rule it as other versions of Magic Missile in this case because anything less than total cover/total concealment means you can still see the creature.. ergo an automatic hit.

[@tabunga4669]

@ 5:11 hey the spell STILL NEVER MISSES YOUR TARGET. They just put a rule that allows you to possibly target something that isn't there

[@freeadvice1695]

I think the specific trumps general rule may fall into effect here.... would be interesting to see what Paizo has to say re: this.

[@jasonshortt7]

This was a very interesting video. I can see why it does not ignore the concealed condition as the spell does not specifically state that it ignores the concealed condition. At least, that's the wording I'd look for. But I play it like it automatically hits as long as the caster can see it, but maybe that's not correct by raw. Hmmm.. Very interesting x2.

[@jacobwilliams6545]

So MM does not require line of sight? What if the Wizard is blinded

[@Aw3som3-117]

Great video. Personally I like how RAW deals with it and will continue running it that way in the future. I understand the history of Magic Missile and all that, But I don't think RAW undermines that at all. It's still an "automatic hit" spell, and it still automatically hits a target concealed to the caster if you do indeed target it. It's just that when something's concealed you're not 100% sure where it is within the 5ft zone. You kind of see it, but only vaguely. So, with magic missile you hit where you were aiming and would've gotten through any armor that they're wearing if they were there (an automatic hit), but they weren't actually there. Just like it would be unreasonable to have a player say "I'm casting magic missile. Does it hit anything?" In an open field where you suspect there's a target but don't see anything, there's also a chance that when a player says "I cast magic missile on the guy in the fog over there." the GM could say "Alright, you know he's in that square, but it's pretty hard to tell exactly where he is. Give me a DC 5 flat check to see if you're aiming in the right spot. It also is important to note that if magic missile automatically allows you to target something that's concealed there's no reason that I can think of why you wouldn't also be allowed to target something that's hidden, as long as you know the square it's in. But again, the whole point of hidden is that you can't even really see the enemy, much less target their exact location. So, you have to guess, which is simulated with a flat check.

[@kagyto]

Hey me and another gm agree with how YOU play magic missile to concealment. What are your thoughts with Hidden? We look at it as Hidden states you lose the observed trait therefore you cannot be seen period to become a target. What are your thoughts? Do you agree with us?

[@KingTreeN]

I would definitely have my PCs roll for concealment with Magic Missile because concealment deals with targeting. The question that came up in my game is whether or not a magic missile hits unerringly if the target is under the effect of a Mirror Image spell.

[@swingspst]

I would probably treat each missile as an automatic hit if caster can see the images. So no crit success or fail like an attack roll. Then just roll to see if caster hit an image or the actual target. Since there are multiple targets magic missile sounds like a great way to counter mirror image with 3 separate 1 action casts to me.

[@KingTreeN]

@@swingspst that's where the question came in though. My player asked if he could target an image and I said no because that's not how MI works. I was also going with the whole Magic Missile isn't an "attack" like a Strike but automatic damage.

[@xczechr]

@@swingspst Since all missiles strike at once and overcome damage resistance together, they all strike the same target, so magic missile can only destroy one image per casting. Otherwise area of effect spells like fireball would destroy all images, which is not the case.

[@swingspst]

@@xczechr Yes, after I looked into this further I agree. And actually, since Mirror Image is a miss chance MM bypasses it so would hit the actual target not images as it was explained to me.

[@williamsearight]

Insightful video. Well done.

[@HowItsPlayed]

Thanks!

[@Rod_J]

Why not apply the specified check to assess whether the caster can see enough of the enemy to target them with the spell? If they can then blaze away. If not they must target someone else, or cast something else.

[@gustavef23]

So if I target a concealed creature with something like "Hideous Laughter" that would also require the flat check to target them?

[@Vezalin]

When you target a creature that’s concealed from you, you must attempt a DC 5 flat check before you roll to determine your effect. If you fail, you don’t affect the target. The concealed condition doesn’t change which of the main categories of detection apply to the creature. A creature in a light fog bank is still observed even though it’s concealed.

[@Aw3som3-117]

Yep. It's the act of trying to effectively target a creature that concealed makes harder. Same with the hidden condition's flat check. The only way to avoid it entirely is through AoE, where you're not targeting a creature, but rather a square or multiple squares.

[@swingspst]

Yes, in the wording of concealed: "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." So not just things requiring attack rolls.

[@KillerBerserk007]

Well I'm frustrated. I just wrote up a paragraph and was scrolling through some of the other comments and it deleted my draft. Anyway to summarize. I dont think that Concealed should be considered for magic missile, HOWEVER I do think that the "Degrees of Detection" should. Since you can be "Concealed and Observed" OR you can be "Concealed and Undetected" Casting Magic Missile: Concealed and Observed - Hits Concealed and Undetected - Up to GM (I would rule if they 'target' the correct square, then it hits, no flat check) Casting Acid Splash: Concealed and Observed - Flat Check Concealed and Undetected - Up to GM However, getting into this, there's a lot of assumptions about Targeting and the Degrees of Detection that get a little weird here. It seems like there should be an Errata to clarify how this all works together.

[@tabunga4669]

YES! I called it a long time ago and a lot of OLDER players got but hurt. Remember the flat check is for your ability targeting the spell. You could target a shadow within an area of fog but the enemy could actually be 5 ft farther away due to lighting SO IT ALL MAKES SENSE

[@TacticusPrime]

So the conceal rule effects whether you CAN target something. So you role to be able to target, then if you do manage to target then you automatically hit with MM. Seems logical.

[@rylandrc]

These videos are great for testing if my PF2 knowledge is correct.

[@TonganJedi]

I'm not sentimental so RAW wins unless Paizo rules otherwise. Thanks for the heads-up, though. I wouldn't have caught the conundrum in the first place.

[@aliasmask]

I think it was just an oversight on the writers. It should have included language like the True Strike spell. Although, True Strike can hit invisible creatures if you target the correct square. Another thing with Magic Missile is it should avoid Cover like a glass window if it has another path to hit target like through an open door or window. I would still limit the missile to 120ft travel path. That could be a good next video. Discussing Invisibility negation. It only drops to concealment with things like Faerie Fire and Glitterdust.

[@vonBlashyrkh]

I'd argue the swerving magic missile would not be permissible under the line of effect wording of requiring an unobstructed path.

[@aliasmask]

@@vonBlashyrkh I'd mostly agree with you, but MM is a special case. This is mostly due to the history of MM. One could also argue that the magic to detect your location is a spread effect allowing it to go around corners, like fireball where if there is a path to you with in the range of spell that you'll be affected.

[@solomani-42]

Traditionally it’s so long as you see the target for what it’s worth. So wouldn’t work against invisibility. Wouldn’t be making any flat rolls. That never applies.

[@nothingelsetodoZ]

I think I will use this rule. It is not that complicated to explain, not too hard to circumvent, and gives concealment one more use. Just like -1 from creatures in range of a ranged attack, move around, Ranger!

[@Benlyd]

I appreciate your insight, but I disagree as to what the RAW supposedly are. To explain my argument, I will go over the separate aspects of the situation and consider the points raised in the comments: • A concealed target is still observed. This means that even a concealed target is “a creature that you can see”. Adam Owens had the right idea, but the wrong effect. Yes, I will gladly make the magic missile unable to be cast on someone that is HIDDEN. In our situation, the target is concealed, not hidden. • The “Concealed” effect states that “you must attempt a DC 5 flat check before you roll to determine your effect”. But in our situation, we do not roll. Magic missile completely skips this step. There is no roll and therefore no flat check before the roll. I completely agree with Blaydsong and Jonathan H here. With your interpretation, you would actually change what the spell description states: “You send a dart of force streaking toward a creature that you can see. It automatically hits and deals 1d4+1 force damage.“ How can it automatically hit if you give the spell a 20% chance to miss?

[@JacksonOwex]

I look at it this way, if you can see it you can hit it, if you can't see it well you don't know where it. is to target it. So unless it is total concealment then it is useless against Magic Missile!

[@krelios]

I will go with RAW at my table. If they're concealed and you can't target them successfully, you can't get the automatic hit. If the spell said "one target you can see automatically takes damage" then this would work but it doesn't, you still have to target them first.

[@DanAmurskiy]

How would you rule Magic Missile interaction with Mirror Image spell?

[@HowItsPlayed]

That's another hotly debated topic with valid arguments on both sides. But my take is that Mirror Image does protect against Magic Missile in 2nd edition. Magic Missile automatically scores a "hit" against a valid target (never misses, critically misses or critically hits). From there, you just follow the guidance from Mirror Image that tells you what happens on a hit. As for concerns about whether all of the missiles target the same image or different images, there are arguments that by RAW they would all target the same, but I prefer to roll differently for each one. I think that adds a degree of fun, situational utility to Magic Missile in that it can be used to clear out an opponent's Mirror Image pretty swiftly. That's not a RAW interpretation... just what I think is fun for my table.

[@DanAmurskiy]

@@HowItsPlayed Thanks for taking time to answer! I also have a suggestion for a Rule Reminder. Does one suffer MAP for action that was disrupted? Example would be casting a spell with Attack trait while being Grabbed and failing the flat check. Would Escape, attempted as a third action, be affected by MAP or not?

[@davewilson13]

Fire Ball is likely best known, but Magic Missile is number 2.

[@KHfanz]

First line of magic missiles says “a creature you can see” and since a creature that’s concealed is still OBSERVED and thus seen, it would ignore everything else about concealment because magic missiles automatically hits a creature you can see.

[@MrMetFanSC]

Yes, except that the point of the flat check of concealment is that is to determine if what you see is correct or not.

[@KHfanz]

@@MrMetFanSC for a normal targeting spell yes, for a spell whose only requirement is that the target is seen? No. The concealment condition explicitly says that they are Observed, and observed says they are seen. So you would bypass concealments chance to target because of magic missiles specific requirement of seen. Specific > General every time

[@janwillemgunneman2235]

I always let my players first role a dc5 flat check, and if they succeed, then they are allowed to target. Because else they would not be aware enough to cast that spell. Else you could just randomly let people cast magic missile, and they would attack the people in a room, that they could consider their enemy.

[@RekijanGaming]

I would argue that Concealed can make you miss, and Magic Missile automatically hits. Sadly concealed doesn't say it makes you miss but that the spell fails. So by RAW this is not valid but it is what I would go with at my tables.

[@TarEcthelion]

I'd argue Fireball is the quintessential spell everyone knows, but absolutely not arguing with the logic (or implying Magic Missile isn't nearly as well known). ...Also "algorithm" ;-)

[@squidrecluse2336]

I agree on both counts. RAW magic missile is affected to concealment, but it's up to the GMs discretion. Personally, I have a weird mix of the two interpretations. If the target is concealed physically, meaning you have clear line of sight to the target but something obstructs traditional attacks, then MM isn't affected by concealment. If the target is concealed visually, such as by an obscuring mist or magical illusion, then that interferes with the casters ability to target a creature, and thus MM would be affected by concealment. I understand this is way more complicated than it really needs to be (especially considering it only affects one spell), so I won't blame anyone for not doing it this way, but that's just how I run it.

[@Eccelsed]

Really great video. I'm once again stunned3 by the precision pf2e system is written.

[@torgsmith7821]

For me it depends on how concealed the target is. If your buddy is fighting an enemy of about the same size and fighting style with so much smoke/mist you can't tell the difference between the two combatants, I would require a roll to target the correct target.

[@douglasbaiense]

So, looking at the Magic Missile spell, it seems by RAW you have to roll the CD5 check for each missile you fire agains't the concealed target, not once for the whole spell.

[@swingspst]

Believe this has been hashed out but if you are firing at the same target multiple times then they aren't considered separate castings. 3 missiles at 1 target is 3 action cast. This came up in relation to Inspire Courage damage bonus. You don't get +1 for each missile vs same target. So only 1 flat check if against same target.

[@douglasbaiense]

@@swingspst mmm that is counter intuitive. It comes a point the rules dont really make sense by themselves

[@laserlemons1577]

I liked the always sunny cut.

[@HowItsPlayed]

I'm genuinely surprised it took this long for someone to mention it... :)

[@dwaynebennett4272]

Don’t play Baldurs Gate 3 if you think MM can’t miss. Hit cover all the time.

[@dwaynebennett4272]

I say with MM got to see it to hit it.

[@Laufbursche4u]

I go with the flat check. Maybe the caster can't see the target at the moment he finished the spell.

[@claudiofarinon1941]

I would actually rule against magic missile but I would roll concealment against each missile. This causes a lot of d20s at higher levels but it causes concealment to have some benefit while not negating magic missile completely.

[@brianlane723]

Also, would you need to roll a flat check for each missile?

[@HowItsPlayed]

One check for the spell. Concealment might prevent the targeting of the spell, but once cast all the missiles would fire.

[@douglasbaiense]

very interesting. I have never thought about that. I will go with RAW, as I think it makes sense.

[@thepocketGM]

Sorry, I don't agree with your personal rules at your table. It reads "...that you can see..." and uses "...unerringly..." Not that it always hits, but that it's unerring (a slight, but notable difference). Concealment destroys your first step you mentioned. You need to, as you said, Step 1) Target. Think of it this way, the error is not on the spell, it's on YOU, the caster. You, being imperfect, can very, VERY easily lose your focus, have difficulties picking it out from the surrounding terrain, etc etc You mentioned all that, but it beats repeating. Great job, as always!

[@swingspst]

Just fyi, Looks like you may be referencing the 1st edition MM description. I don't see 'unerring' in the 2nd edition spell description.

[@Jader7777]

And to think people play Pathfinder because it has "clearer rules" that other games. 👌🤣