D&D 5E Do magic missiles automatically hit

[Paraxis]

First, as someone said earlier with assassinate, you need to score a hit.

Second, in order to score a critical, you have to have an attack roll. See attacks and rolling a 1 or 20.

Third, the only spells that can score a critical are the ones you make attack rolls with. Confirmed by Mearls, and backed up by attack roll rules.

Fourth, the you have to hit for a condition to give you an autocrit. Again under attacks.

That is RAW. However you want to play/interpret in your game is fine.

You keep saying this but don't back it up with you know rule references.

First, "score" is not a game term and has no meaning in the context of this conversation. Assassinate says "hit", magic missile says "hit", that is the key term here.

Second, in never says you need to have an attack roll to score a critical hit. The section you are talking about mentions how you normally score a critical hit, it doesn't have limiting wording that implies this is the only way to score a critical.

Third, save spells can't crit because they don't hit. The only spell that has the word "hit" in it, that doesn't use an attack roll is magic missile, the designers chose to use that word not me.

Fourth, again it never says that is the only way to score a critical hit.

So you can play by the intent of the rules, which I agree is most likely magic missiles shouldn't ever get a critical. But that is not RAW. Before you say something is RAW maybe you should read the rules, and if you want to back up your point of view maybe a direct quote or two.

 

[Iosue]

That's .... The only way I have ever heard the term used. It's certainly the only way I have ever used it. If anyone ever used "disinterested" to mean anything other than "uninterested" in my presence I would be completely lost. And while I do acknowledge the reality of linguistic drift I might possibly beat them to death with an iron-clad OED.

Here's an example of wanting to maintain a distinction.

Unfortunately for that argument, there's this, the distinction originally being the exact opposite of what people want to make it today. In as much as there ever was a clear distinction. "Interest" has long had multiple meanings clear by context, and "un-" and "dis-" have been ways of negating the word. I have not seen an argument for rigidly enforcing the distinction that didn't essentially boil down to "This is how I learned it and change in my lifetime is bad."

 

[Andor]

Here's an example of wanting to maintain a distinction.

Unfortunately for that argument, there's this, the distinction originally being the exact opposite of what people want to make it today. In as much as there ever was a clear distinction. "Interest" has long had multiple meanings clear by context, and "un-" and "dis-" have been ways of negating the word. I have not seen an argument for rigidly enforcing the distinction that didn't essentially boil down to "This is how I learned it and change in my lifetime is bad."

I see. Your original post failed to make reference to the distinction between disinterested and uninterested. You merely used the word "opposite", implying that people were using disinterested when they actually meant interested or even fascinated. The difference between dis- and un- interested is moderately subtle, they are certainly not antonyms.

 

[Iosue]

You merely used the word "opposite", implying that people were using disinterested when they actually meant interested or even fascinated.

You'll have to show where I used the word "opposite". And I don't see how I was implying anything like that.

 

[PeelSeel2]

You keep saying this but don't back it up with you know rule references.

First, "score" is not a game term and has no meaning in the context of this conversation. Assassinate says "hit", magic missile says "hit", that is the key term here.

Second, in never says you need to have an attack roll to score a critical hit. The section you are talking about mentions how you normally score a critical hit, it doesn't have limiting wording that implies this is the only way to score a critical.

Third, save spells can't crit because they don't hit. The only spell that has the word "hit" in it, that doesn't use an attack roll is magic missile, the designers chose to use that word not me.

Fourth, again it never says that is the only way to score a critical hit.

So you can play by the intent of the rules, which I agree is most likely magic missiles shouldn't ever get a critical. But that is not RAW. Before you say something is RAW maybe you should read the rules, and if you want to back up your point of view maybe a direct quote or two.

I think your interpretation of the rules as written is in error; you think mine are in error. I do not see a fuller understanding coming about without official rulings, which will happen, probably later than sooner. I am going to agree to disagree with you.

 

[fjw70]

RAW you can make a case either way for MM to Crit or not. However, I believe the intent is that they do not and the "hit" terminology in the MM description is just a poorly chosen word.

 

[Paraxis]

RAW you can make a case either way for MM to Crit or not.

I disagree with this as I believe true RAW only has one interpretation.

However, I believe the intent is that they do not and the "hit" terminology in the MM description is just a poorly chosen word.

I agree with this 100%, the intent was probably MM should not crit because it doesn't attack, and it is poorly chosen wording in the spell description that allows for it. The rules should be written with clear and concise game terminology and key words, so RAW can be understood very easily. Fluff should not be included in spell descriptions for example, and if it is should be marked as such and away from the important parts.

 

[Andor]

You'll have to show where I used the word "opposite". And I don't see how I was implying anything like that.

In your reply, which I conflated with the original post. I blame jetlag. Never mind. I take your meaning and it's far off topic.

On topic, there is a distinction even in plain language rules writing between the use of a word such as hit in a technical sense and in a descriptive sense. However which sense of the word hit is employed in in the text of the Magic Missile spell description is left as a judgement call on the part of the DM. Since it only matters in corner cases like an Assassin, my advice would be to talk to your DM before setting up such a character.

 

[fanboy2000]

I agree with this 100%, the intent was probably MM should not crit because it doesn't attack, and it is poorly chosen wording in the spell description that allows for it.

I don't think it's poorly worded at all.

First, the point of abilities like Assassinate is to give the PC a critical hit when they typically wouldn't. That includes Magic Missile.

Second, given the ruckus over Magic Missile in 4e's Essentials, I think the designers of the game, and the writers of the PHB, knew how special the term 'hit' was and wrote the entry appropriately. I think they knew what they were doing when they used the word 'hit' in the spell description.

Third, 2d4+1 per missile on those occasions when it's applicable isn't exactly game braking.

To be poorly worded the outcome would not have to be unintentional, but game breaking.

 

[fjw70]

I disagree with this as I believe true RAW only has one interpretation.



I agree with this 100%, the intent was probably MM should not crit because it doesn't attack, and it is poorly chosen wording in the spell description that allows for it. The rules should be written with clear and concise game terminology and key words, so RAW can be understood very easily. Fluff should not be included in spell descriptions for example, and if it is should be marked as such and away from the important parts.

RAW can have multiple interpretations if not worded properly.