D&D 5E Chill touch vs Troll regeneration

[Staffan]

At 93.50 per Magic Missile IX

How do you get that figure? A 9th level magic missile deals 11d4+11 points, +5 for Empowered Evocation. That's 43.5 points on average, not 93.5.

Or did you think Empowered Evocation applied to each dart? I'll grant that the PHB could be read either way, but the errata clarifies that it applies to one damage roll of a spell, not each roll.

 

[matskralc]

How do you get that figure? A 9th level magic missile deals 11d4+11 points, +5 for Empowered Evocation. That's 43.5 points on average, not 93.5.

Or did you think Empowered Evocation applied to each dart? I'll grant that the PHB could be read either way, but the errata clarifies that it applies to one damage roll of a spell, not each roll.

Isn't Magic Missile supposed to be just one damage roll that is then applied to each dart?

EDIT: Here you go. http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/01/26/bonus-spell-damage/

 

[Ristamar]

That's a good concept, I might have to make use of it myself.

You may want to look at The Angry GM's articles regarding Paragon monsters (aka Boss Fight monsters).

http://theangrygm.com/return-of-the-son-of-the-dd-boss-fight-now-in-5e/

http://theangrygm.com/elemental-boogaloo/

 

[dave2008]

Isn't Magic Missile supposed to be just one damage roll that is then applied to each dart?

EDIT: Here you go. http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/01/26/bonus-spell-damage/

What does the official errata say? His tweets are not official and have been changed at times when the official errata / FAQ was released.

 

[matskralc]

What does the official errata say? His tweets are not official and have been changed at times when the official errata / FAQ was released.

Crawford's tweets are official.

"Official Rulings
Official rulings on how to interpret unclear rules are made in Sage Advice. The public statements of the D&D team, or anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice. One exception: the game’s rules manager, Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford), can make official rulings and usually does so in Sage Advice." - Sage Advice Compendium, page 1: http://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/SA_Compendium_1.01.pdf

 

[dave2008]

Crawford's tweets are official.

"Official Rulings
Official rulings on how to interpret unclear rules are made in Sage Advice. The public statements of the D&D team, or anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice. One exception: the game’s rules manager, Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford), can make official rulings and usually does so in Sage Advice." - Sage Advice Compendium, page 1: http://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/SA_Compendium_1.01.pdf

However he has changed a tweets ruling before when errata was released. Really just asking if it had been cross checked with the errata

 

[matskralc]

The errata doesn't mention anything about Magic Missile's damage roll.

 

[dave2008]

The errata doesn't mention anything about Magic Missile's damage roll.

good to know - and thank you for checking!

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

How do you get that figure? A 9th level magic missile deals 11d4+11 points, +5 for Empowered Evocation. That's 43.5 points on average, not 93.5.

Or did you think Empowered Evocation applied to each dart? I'll grant that the PHB could be read either way, but the errata clarifies that it applies to one damage roll of a spell, not each roll.

As Makskralc points out, because of the "simultaneous" wording in the spell's description, it is not 11d4+11+5, it is 11x(d4+1+5), which is similar to but not quite like 11d4+66. Of course you could overchannel too for a guaranteed 110 points of damage.

It takes a bit of puzzling over the errata and dev tweets to work out the fact that "simultaneous" in Magic Missile's description is actually an operative (and important!) clause (which combines with the "simultaneous" language in the PHB description of why you only roll once for a Fireball which damages multiple targets simultaneously). A DM would be within his rights to make a less esoteric ruling because it is definitely not obvious upon first reading that Magic Missile and Scorching Ray are supposed to interact differently with Empowered Evocation.

Really, Empowered Evocation should list Magic Missile and Scorching Ray as examples in its description and explain why they work differently.

 

[dave2008]

You may want to look at The Angry GM's articles regarding Paragon monsters (aka Boss Fight monsters).

http://theangrygm.com/return-of-the-son-of-the-dd-boss-fight-now-in-5e/

http://theangrygm.com/elemental-boogaloo/

Some good ideas, thank you for sharing. I have mixed feelings about going to two full turns, legendary actions are good for additional actions I think. However, there is a certain simplicity to that is better in some ways to legendary actions.

In general it reminds of the ideas I explored in 4e solo design (monsters in parts, multi-stat block monsters), that would be good to bring back to 5e (I've already made some parted monsters)

I will probably give the suggestions a spin. Thank you again for the link!