Magic Missile. How have you and how do you roll the damage.

[billd91]

I think the ruling brings up a number of problems. Does it similarly apply to damage with Mordenkainen's sword, Mordenkainen's faithful hound, and spiritual weapon? If the rules about rolling once per multiple targets takes the spell as the appropriate unit (rather than individual attacks or magic missiles), then it would stand to reason you roll once for them too.

 

[Caliban]

It does not support the tweet* at all, it says "A dart does d4+ 1 damage to its target" and that the spell creates three. Nothing about them all doing the same damage.

Helps if you actually read the entire spell. The Magic Missile spell also says "The darts all strike simultaneously, and you can direct them to hit one creature or several."

And hey, there is a specific rule for spells that do damage to all targets at the same time!

If a spell or other effect deals damage to more than one target at the same time, roll the damage once for all of them. For example, when a Wizard casts Fireball or a Cleric casts Flame Strike, the spell’s damage is rolled once for all creatures caught in the blast.

So don't pretend Jeremy Crawford was confused or making stuff up just because it's not what you wanted to hear. He has a solid basis in the rules for his answer, like it or not.

Please, get off the high horse. No need to be insulting to Jeremy Crawford just because you don't like his explanation of the rules. He'd be the first one to tell you to roll the damage however you want, it's your game.

 

[Caliban]

I think the ruling brings up a number of problems. Does it similarly apply to damage with Mordenkainen's sword, Mordenkainen's faithful hound, and spiritual weapon? If the rules about rolling once per multiple targets takes the spell as the appropriate unit (rather than individual attacks or magic missiles), then it would stand to reason you roll once for them too.

Nope. The spell has to do damage to several targets at the same time, not on different attacks or rounds for this rule to apply. For the umpteenth time - PHB, page 196.

 

[Caliban]

Roll per missile.

Sage Advice has a long and glorious history of getting things wrong.

Or more properly - giving answers you don't like and pretend are wrong, even if they are correct.

 

[delericho]

Or more properly - giving answers you don't like and pretend are wrong, even if they are correct.

No.

The Sage is human, the same as everyone else. Not surprisingly, he makes mistake, the same as everyone else. And that has been true ever since the feature was introduced to Dragon magazine some decades ago.

 

[Caliban]

No.

The Sage is human, the same as everyone else. Not surprisingly, he makes mistake, the same as everyone else. And that has been true ever since the feature was introduced to Dragon magazine some decades ago.

And you think this justifies engaging in a little Sage bashing and generally being a jerk about someone who isn't present whenever his name comes up.

Hey, I'm human too, and I don't like seeing people bullied or insulted, especially when - as in this instance - they were correct and all the smug little jerks bashing them are actually wrong.

I really hate how petty gamers are sometimes. Run the game however you want - Jeremy Crawford would tell you that himself. However, some people genuinely want his opinion on the rules, based on his position as the "official" rules guy and one of the 5e game designers. So he takes time out of his day to answers hundreds and thousands (by this point) of questions - for free.

No one is forced to use any of his rulings, but some people still feel compelled to be derisive and insulting to him if they don't like the answer. I don't like some of his answers either - but that just means I don't use them in my game. It doesn't mean I mock him and belittle him behind his back.

So, in summation: Grow up. And get off my lawn.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Sage Advice has one and only one job...

...smooth the hair and say "There, there, it'll be okay" to any DMs too frightened to make their own calls on the rules.

If any DM disagrees with what Sage Advice says... GOOD! You're doing it right! It means you were actually making your own rulings to begin with and thus have no need to be reading Sage Advice in the first place. LOL!

 

[billd91]

Nope. The spell has to do damage to several targets at the same time, not on different attacks or rounds for this rule to apply. For the umpteenth time - PHB, page 196.

Scorching Ray then. If I target multiple targets and crit on one - do I ignore the crit, roll the crit on all targets, or ignore the idea that I roll the same for each one and treat the unit of concern as each individual ray rather than the spell? If the last, then why am I not doing the same with the individual magic missiles?

 

[billd91]

So don't pretend Jeremy Crawford was confused or making stuff up just because it's not what you wanted to hear. He has a solid basis in the rules for his answer, like it or not.

Please, get off the high horse. No need to be insulting to Jeremy Crawford just because you don't like his explanation of the rules. He'd be the first one to tell you to roll the damage however you want, it's your game.

This wouldn't be the first time I think they've issued a weird ruling based on a literal yet non-obvious reading of the rules that comes as a surprise to most experienced players. Kind of makes me think they get backed into them rather than plan them.

 

[S'mon]

Helps if you actually read the entire spell. The Magic Missile spell also says "The darts all strike simultaneously, and you can direct them to hit one creature or several."

And hey, there is a specific rule for spells that do damage to all targets at the same time!



So don't pretend Jeremy Crawford was confused or making stuff up just because it's not what you wanted to hear. He has a solid basis in the rules for his answer, like it or not.

Please, get off the high horse. No need to be insulting to Jeremy Crawford just because you don't like his explanation of the rules. He'd be the first one to tell you to roll the damage however you want, it's your game.

Nothing you said gives any support to this ridiculous garbage ruling. I appreciate that Crawford will not personally force me to roll 1d4 and multiply it, but I don't want to see any Tweet-waving idiots at my table acting like this is a reasonable interpretation of the written rules (eg in order stack damage bonuses, or whatever rules lawyer crap they come up with). I don't want to have to devote table time to making a 'house rule' that magic missile works like it did in 1e/2e/3e. I really wish such tweets were not being put out.