D&D 5E 5e Magic

[Andor]

I don't think you're dodging a can of worms, merely opening a different one. What about the tines of a trident or the weights on a bola? Real damage, different parts of the body, occuring simultaneously.

To my mind simultanaity is the key. A spiritual weapon hitting across multiple rounds is no different from a greatsword hitting on different rounds. A check for each hit.

Like I said, it is a grey area, the phrase "source of damage' is ill defined. It's probably one of those things that will vary from table to table, and that's okay.

On a more general note I noticed that a lot of spells call for diamonds. Some interesting possibilities there, I'd expect the diamond trade to be heavily regulated/controlled in any very lawful areas. Possibly controlled by the temples since it's mostly holy spells that use them. And then there is the possibility of a diamond rush when rumours spread of diamonds being found in a new land. Will the rebels get there before the temple enforcers so they can resurrect their lost leader Erno from his preserved nose?

 

[machineelf]

Well I'm all for retaining value from 4e.

The little that there is. I kid! I kid!

 

[Mouseferatu]

I admit, the trident example is an interesting one.

In the end, though, to me it comes down to expression of damage. A great sword deals 2d6. A trident--regardless of how many points hit --does 1d8. (I think.)

But MM deals damage per missile. If I hit with one, I do 1d4. If I hit with two, I do a second 1d4. Etc. Damage is based on number of impacts, and each has its own damage expression. To me, then, each is a separate source.

But as you said, it's definitely fuzzy, and tables will likely rule differently.

 

[jadrax]

Clearly it should be one Concentration check per missile. It's obvious.

I don't think you're dodging a can of worms, merely opening a different one. What about the tines of a trident or the weights on a bola? Real damage, different parts of the body, occuring simultaneously.

Oh hang on, no that's a really good point. You have actually changed my mind.


Congratulations, you have won the Internet. Go directly to heaven, do not pass Go, do not collect £1,000.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

But MM deals damage per missile. If I hit with one, I do 1d4. If I hit with two, I do a second 1d4. Etc. Damage is based on number of impacts, and each has its own damage expression. To me, then, each is a separate source.

But as you said, it's definitely fuzzy, and tables will likely rule differently.

It is fuzzy, but when you're making an L1 spell, which requires no attack rolls, and has absolutely no chance of failure, force three+ concentration checks, I think you're probably being over-generous. Perhaps wildly over-generous.

Given people tend to simply roll the damage dice of MM together and announce a total damage on a target, I'd definitely treat it as one. It's one spell and the bolts hit at the same time, after all. If it required attack rolls, I might be me more generous, because then there's chance of failure, rather than an incredibly cheap/easy way to make most casters lose Concentration.

Math-wise, say you use it a CON 14 Wizard, so he's got +2 to his CON save, which as a DC of 10, so he needs to roll an 8 or higher - 60% chance. He has to do that three times on the default MM by your reckoning. By my math that gives him roughly a 21.6% chance of maintaining Concentration. Compare this to a single-damage-source-forced Concentration check - he would need to be hit for 36 points of damage (!!!) to make the DC18 and thus have a 20% chance to maintain Concentration...

See what I mean about wildly generous?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

It is fuzzy, but when you're making an L1 spell, which requires no attack rolls, and has absolutely no chance of failure, force three+ concentration checks, I think you're probably being over-generous. Perhaps wildly over-generous.

Given people tend to simply roll the damage dice of MM together and announce a total damage on a target, I'd definitely treat it as one. It's one spell and the bolts hit at the same time, after all. If it required attack rolls, I might be me more generous, because then there's chance of failure, rather than an incredibly cheap/easy way to make most casters lose Concentration.

Math-wise, say you use it a CON 14 Wizard, so he's got +2 to his CON save, which as a DC of 10, so he needs to roll an 8 or higher - 60% chance. He has to do that three times on the default MM by your reckoning. By my math that gives him roughly a 21.6% chance of maintaining Concentration. Compare this to a single-damage-source-forced Concentration check - he would need to be hit for 36 points of damage (!!!) to make the DC18 and thus have a 20% chance to maintain Concentration...

See what I mean about wildly generous?

magic missile was always the best concentration breaker in 2nd edition. Fast and always htting.

I do however agree, that the rules are clear: all missiles hit simultaneously. So a single damage role.

 

[Rod Staffwand]

The MM/Concentration issue needs clarification. Until that happens (if that happens), I don't think you'd do too bad running it in whatever way makes sense to you.

If you go with the multiple check route, shield becomes a must have spell for battle wizards. It'd probably be common to see MM vs. Shield battles when casters face each other. I don't think clerics have a similar option, so they are more vulnerable, as are monsters that employ Concentration without being similarly protected.

 

[Dausuul]

It is fuzzy, but when you're making an L1 spell, which requires no attack rolls, and has absolutely no chance of failure, force three+ concentration checks, I think you're probably being over-generous. Perhaps wildly over-generous.

Given people tend to simply roll the damage dice of MM together and announce a total damage on a target, I'd definitely treat it as one. It's one spell and the bolts hit at the same time, after all. If it required attack rolls, I might be me more generous, because then there's chance of failure, rather than an incredibly cheap/easy way to make most casters lose Concentration.

Math-wise, say you use it a CON 14 Wizard, so he's got +2 to his CON save, which as a DC of 10, so he needs to roll an 8 or higher - 60% chance. He has to do that three times on the default MM by your reckoning. By my math that gives him roughly a 21.6% chance of maintaining Concentration. Compare this to a single-damage-source-forced Concentration check - he would need to be hit for 36 points of damage (!!!) to make the DC18 and thus have a 20% chance to maintain Concentration...

See what I mean about wildly generous?

It's also a pretty narrow area, though; it's limited to cases where you have an enemy caster whose concentration really urgently needs to be broken right now. Keep in mind that spellcasters have a lot of arrows in their arcane quivers; concentration spells are not the only things they can do to you.

 

[Mort]

magic missile was always the best concentration breaker in 2nd edition. Fast and always htting.

I do however agree, that the rules are clear: all missiles hit simultaneously. So a single damage role.

It's a bit fuzzier than that though, because it's 3 distinct missiles.

If there were 3 concentrating casters in range you could, without question, force a concentration check for each of them. Thus, the trident or bola example doesn't quite match.

That said, it is simultaneous and it's a first level spell - so I think I would go with 1 concentration check regardless of number of missiles - but I'm not at all sure that's the intent.

Edit: looking at the concentration description: You must make a separate saving through for each source of damage. Since the missiles are clearly from the same source (1 spell) and simultaneous. I'm pretty comfortable stating it's 1 save, IMO of course.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Edit: looking at the concentration description: You must make a separate saving through for each source of damage. Since the missiles are clearly from the same source (1 spell) and simultaneous. I'm pretty comfortable stating it's 1 save, IMO of course.

That's reasonable. If we were dealing with an edition as obsessively clear as 4e and as devoted to the RAW as 3e, that'd be definitive.

In 5e, it's a DM call. The DM just has to decide if he wants to bork casting of magic missile when the enemy can somehow resist 'each source of damage' and reward it by letting it force multiple concentration checks, or let it power through resistance and force a single, tougher concentration check.

...hm... or he could just rule differently each time, really...

:shrug: