D&D 5E Empowered Evocation plus Magic Missile?

[Warmaster Horus]

But [MENTION=6785438]Warmaster Horus[/MENTION], they aren't "vague" or "seem to support a bonus to a damage roll." It states it flat out.

"...you can add your Intelligence modifier to the damage roll of any wizard evocation spell you cast."

It doesn't "seem" it says, it says. You add it to the damage. Not "per target", not "per dart". To the damage of the spell. 3 x d4+1, then +Mod. That's what it says. It's not "opinion" or "interpretation"...it's basic reading comprehension. .

Does +30 to a Burning Hands spell make sense to you? A Fireball could do +40 or more. Does that make sense? It's a 10th level ability, yes. But does it make sense that your Int. mod. should be exponentially more powerful against a group than an individual? Your Int. mod. is the same no matter how many people you're fighting.

Again, if you want to take "the Word of Mearls" as law/"official", that's up to an individual table...and fine/no skin off my back if you do. But the only "RAI" that is portraying is the AI in Mearls' own game...and I will continue to believe [until proven otherwise] that it was a simple mistake/not thinking it through to say "per target", since it doesn't make sense for that to happen.

This trend of being able to [purposely] shade "misunderstanding/lack of clarity" where there isn't any is something of a hot topic/button pusher for me. I'm not trying to "one true way" it or tell anyone they're playing "wrong" or whatever. Play how you want. Just recognize it for what it is instead of feigning "Oh. I don't know/not sure what this means..." when there's nothing to question. Granted, there are vague or unclear rules in 5e. That's a given. It's bpractically part of D&D's DNA at this point. But this? This is not one of them.

I don't appreciate your tone about my purposefuly misunderstanding the issue. It's a baseless accusation and not conducive to a constructive conversation.

Also in my example of burning hands a caster would roll 3d6+IntMod and apply that damage to each target in the AoE. That means the extra damage is stacked on each target, not just one. Why then does that occur for an AoE but not a multi-target spell? Simple question. No need for histrionics.

 

[Celtavian]

Nice. Mearls making it once per target makes it better than once per spell as we were playing it. Warlock gets damage per eldritch blast ray. That is really powerful. Empowered Evocation seemed pretty weak next to the warlock ability. I'm going to stick with once per target. Means you can't mass all the energy into one target, but it's still an empowered spell. It is once per target for AoE spells as well. It's very balanced that way.

 

[steeldragons]

Also in my example of burning hands a caster would roll 3d6+IntMod and apply that damage to each target in the AoE. That means the extra damage is stacked on each target, not just one. Why then does that occur for an AoE but not a multi-target spell? Simple question. No need for histrionics.

Apologies for the "tone." I get that a lot.

As for your example, you are saying "why wouldn't it work the way [you're] saying for this spell but not that one"...and what I'm saying is, regardless of what Mearls' tweets, "It doesn't work that way for ANY spell!" because that's not what the ability says.

It's not that/I am not saying it's ok for Burning Hands: 3d6 + Int. mod. per target, but Magic Missile can't do d4+1+Int. mod. per target.

I am saying, the Damage is 3d6 + Mod...once, for everybody (save for half). Not 3d6 + Mod for you, and 3d6 + mod for you, and 3d6+mod for you...Magic Missile would be 1d4+1 per dart [3 times]...+Mod., once. That is how it reads.

 

[iatesand]

Apologies for the "tone." I get that a lot.

As for your example, you are saying "why wouldn't it work the way [you're] saying for this spell but not that one"...and what I'm saying is, regardless of what Mearls' tweets, "It doesn't work that way for ANY spell!" because that's not what the ability says.

It's not that/I am not saying it's ok for Burning Hands: 3d6 + Int. mod. per target, but Magic Missile can't do d4+1+Int. mod. per target.

I am saying, the Damage is 3d6 + Mod...once, for everybody (save for half). Not 3d6 + Mod for you, and 3d6 + mod for you, and 3d6+mod for you...Magic Missile would be 1d4+1 per dart [3 times]...+Mod., once. That is how it reads.

Not to split hairs but as long as we are talking about RAW and RAI, the exact RAW implies (flat out says) you are mistaken in your views. The point I think your missing can be found on page 196 of the PHB. Under Damage Rolls: Each weapon, spell, and harmful monster ability specifies the damage it deals. You roll the damage die or dice, add any modifiers, and apply the damage to your target.

This is what we like to call a modifier. So you 1)Roll the damage 2)add the modifier and then 3)apply the damage to the target.. NOT 1)Roll the damage 2)divide the modifier and then 3)apply the damage to the target. This looks pretty clear that you add any multiplier to the damage per target. This isn't "vague" or "seem to support a bonus to a damage roll." It states it flat out.

Some people would say It's not "opinion" or "interpretation"...it's basic reading comprehension.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

The good news is that DMs can decide for themselves. I'd like to see an Official FAQ or Errata on these things, too, but it may be a while, if ever.

 

[steeldragons]

Not to split hairs but as long as we are talking about RAW and RAI, the exact RAW implies (flat out says) you are mistaken in your views. The point I think your missing can be found on page 196 of the PHB. Under Damage Rolls: Each weapon, spell, and harmful monster ability specifies the damage it deals. You roll the damage die or dice, add any modifiers, and apply the damage to your target.

This is what we like to call a modifier. So you 1)Roll the damage 2)add the modifier and then 3)apply the damage to the target.. NOT 1)Roll the damage 2)divide the modifier and then 3)apply the damage to the target. This looks pretty clear that you add any multiplier to the damage per target. This isn't "vague" or "seem to support a bonus to a damage roll." It states it flat out.

Some people would say It's not "opinion" or "interpretation"...it's basic reading comprehension.

And who's got a tone now? hahaha.

But touche. That would be exactly so. If that were the text we were reading/discussing, pg. 196, it is the basic reading comprehension of that text.

However, if we are seeking clarification from other places/things in the book...we also have the "specific trumps the general" way of using the book/ruling of 5e.

So, the specific class ability being discussed, "apply the modifier to your damage roll on any evocation spell" trumps the general rule of "this is how to calculate [any/general] damage"...at least, that is an argument one could make.

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

But touche. That would be exactly so. If that were the text we were reading/discussing, pg. 196, it is the basic reading comprehension of that text.

However, if we are seeking clarification from other places/things in the book...we also have the "specific trumps the general" way of using the book/ruling of 5e.

So, the specific class ability being discussed, "apply the modifier to your damage roll on any evocation spell" trumps the general rule of "this is how to calculate [any/general] damage"...at least, that is an argument one could make.

I understand it to mean you add it to the spell...

so I have an 18 int and cast Fireball, I do 8d6+4 damage (roll 26+4=30) everyone in the AOE rolls a dex save take 30 or 15...
same wizard casts magic missle and throws 3 missles at 2 targets, 1 gets hit for 2d4+6, the other 1d4+5... or 1 target for 3d4+7 either way all targets take 4pts (or 2 on a save) more then if a non evoker cast the spell

my girlfriend tried to argue it was AFTER the save for fireball, and as such the roll 26 would be 30 if you miss it and 17 if you make it... I don't understand her though on why

 

[iatesand]

And who's got a tone now? hahaha.

But touche. That would be exactly so. If that were the text we were reading/discussing, pg. 196, it is the basic reading comprehension of that text.

However, if we are seeking clarification from other places/things in the book...we also have the "specific trumps the general" way of using the book/ruling of 5e.

So, the specific class ability being discussed, "apply the modifier to your damage roll on any evocation spell" trumps the general rule of "this is how to calculate [any/general] damage"...at least, that is an argument one could make.

I figured if anybody would pick pick out the tone humor I was going for you would! I almost added Drop the Mic to the end but that would have contradicted the snarkyness

1) The ability rule state you can add your Intelligence modifier to the damage roll of any evocation spell you cast.
2) The rule on Spell damage roll says the same thing. You add any modifiers to the damage dice and then add them to the target,
3) We have a tweet from a Dev that says the same thing Spell Damage + mod per Target

The only reason I bring up page 196 is because the ability specifically states Int MOD to the Damage Roll, so naturally you would want to look at the rules for the Spell Damage Roll to see if there is anything in it that would clear up the confusion on the ability and the reason for the Tweet ruling, and behold it does! The exact order that modifiers are applied to spell damage! At this point we would have to go out of our way to disagree that these are the RAW and the RAI. Lets call this horse dead and just say we don't agree with the RAW on this instance. But its pretty clear that they intended Evocation Mages to whip out some damage. Its in line with the other 10th level abilities and in line with the Warlock Evocation (that is worded better with "modifier to the damage it deals on a hit").

Come om admit it.. This time, it is not an example of players twisting the rules to gain OP abilities, its is actually the way its supposed to work.

 

[iatesand]

I understand it to mean you add it to the spell...

so I have an 18 int and cast Fireball, I do 8d6+4 damage (roll 26+4=30) everyone in the AOE rolls a dex save take 30 or 15...
same wizard casts magic missle and throws 3 missles at 2 targets, 1 gets hit for 2d4+6, the other 1d4+5... or 1 target for 3d4+7 either way all targets take 4pts (or 2 on a save) more then if a non evoker cast the spell

my girlfriend tried to argue it was AFTER the save for fireball, and as such the roll 26 would be 30 if you miss it and 17 if you make it... I don't understand her though on why

I don't know why you would add the damage after the save, I haven't seen anything that would support that. I really think it all goes back to the Spell Damage Roll, where you take the damage for the spell and to it any modifies and then apply that damage to the target. I mean that is how spell damage is calculated right? The ability is INT modifier right? So spell damage + INT modifier to the target(s) one target or 10 targets. It just does not say you should divide or split the modifier between multiple targets.

 

[spinozajack]

I hope they make the errata clear by adding the line limiting it to once per target, in Empowered Evocation, instead of forcing people to look up twitter posts at the table.

It's ironic that customer interactions in the other thread from Mortal Kombat using twitter is considered a good template, but to find game rules, twitter is pretty bad. It was not designed to be a suitable repository of game rules or rulings or errata. For one, there aren't even enough characters in a tweet to even adequately publish a revision to a rule.

On that note, is there an official date yet for errata coming out?