D&D 5E Empowered Evocation plus Magic Missile?

[ryan92084]

Caliban, on the previous page there were links to Tweets that specifically say that Magic Missile is an exception to that PHB Errata. Magic Missile no matter how many missiles you have, you roll only 1d4+1 & add your Int bonus to each missile.

The reasoning behind that ruling (beyond the spell text not calling out for separate rolls) is partial covered on page 196 of the phb

"If a spell or effect deals damage to more than one target at the same time, roll the damage once for all of them"

Magic missile is currently the only non standard aoe spell that deals "simultaneous" damage so it's often over looked. Obviously this begs the question of what about if all the missiles target the same creature. Well, the rules generally treat spells that possibly have multi targets as if they always do but there's definitely wiggle there.

 

[Noctem]

Unfortunately tweets aren't official errata.

You're correct Caliban, they are at best RAI answers. However, RAI explains that the spell doesn't have multiple damage rolls, instead you roll once and apply the same result for every missile you attack with. So you would roll 1d4+1+INT and then apply that value for to each of the 3 missiles for the base spell. Say that value is 6, you can deal 6x3 = 18 damage to a single target, 12 and 6 to two targets or 6 to 3 targets. But in the case of say spells with multiple attacks, you would only be able to apply the extra damage to one of the attacks and not all of them. This is a unique interaction between MM and Empowered Evocation.

 

[Noah Ivaldi]

If you respect it, at least characterize it correctly. It's not a unique interaction. It's not an exception. The rule is that EE applies to "one damage roll." The Tweet says that Magic Missile is, in fact, one damage roll . . . multiplied and spread according to the wishes of the caster. Let me repeat: This is not an exception to any rule. It's just unclear design.

What we see here is one of two things: Jeremy Crawford can't make up his mind, or he can't bring himself to actually answer a frequently asked question in official errata, in stead giving a completely misleading answer.

So far, the only consistent element to this matter is that evokers are the wizards that couldn't understand why the short bus driver didn't just cast Fly on all of them.

 

[Caliban]

You're correct Caliban, they are at best RAI answers. However, RAI explains that the spell doesn't have multiple damage rolls, instead you roll once and apply the same result for every missile you attack with. So you would roll 1d4+1+INT and then apply that value for to each of the 3 missiles for the base spell. Say that value is 6, you can deal 6x3 = 18 damage to a single target, 12 and 6 to two targets or 6 to 3 targets. But in the case of say spells with multiple attacks, you would only be able to apply the extra damage to one of the attacks and not all of them. This is a unique interaction between MM and Empowered Evocation.

OK, I'll accept that. It seems completely counter-intuitive and the opposite of how Magic Missile has worked in every prior edition, but OK. I just don't like using Tweets as the basis of a different rules interpretation when I present it to the group I play with. (It resulted in a rather heated argument last night.)

But it does seem (to me at least) that this is a case of how RAI works now, not RAI at the time the spell was written or it would have been worded more clearly. (i.e. the spell says it creates multiple darts and a dart does 1d4+1 damage. Not "the spell does 1d4+1 damage, and that damage is applied to each dart" or something similar.)

This also interacts with a sorcerer's Empower metamagic feat in that they only reroll a single d4. Stronger for low charisma sorcerers, making certain multi-class builds more viable.

 

[LightningArrow]

"Beginning at 10th level, you can add your Intelligence modifier to the damage roll of any wizard evocation spell you cast."

The spell is cast once, no matter the number of darts. Therefore, it applies once. No mystery at all.

 

[ryan92084]

"Beginning at 10th level, you can add your Intelligence modifier to the damage roll of any wizard evocation spell you cast."

The spell is cast once, no matter the number of darts. Therefore, it applies once. No mystery at all.

"You add your intelligence modifier to the damage roll" doesn't mean the same as you apply your intelligence modifier as damage to one creature effected by an evocation spell. The same damage roll is applied to several targets in multiple instances.

 

[Noctem]

"You add your intelligence modifier to the damage roll" doesn't mean the same as you apply your intelligence modifier as damage to one creature effected by an evocation spell. The same damage roll is applied to several targets in multiple instances.

Exactly. Spells that use a single damage roll but can affect multiple targets (Fireball, Magic Missile, etc..) are able to really benefit from this feature.

 

[Kithas]

But it does seem (to me at least) that this is a case of how RAI works now, not RAI at the time the spell was written or it would have been worded more clearly. (i.e. the spell says it creates multiple darts and a dart does 1d4+1 damage. Not "the spell does 1d4+1 damage, and that damage is applied to each dart" or something similar.)

Sadly this is not the case, as far as a Rules book goes the phb is one of the worst written sets of rules I have ever had to deal with. It honestly seems intentionally vague and misleading when it should be precise and clear. I honestly want to rewrite it.

 

[Noctem]

Sadly this is not the case, as far as a Rules book goes the phb is one of the worst written sets of rules I have ever had to deal with. It honestly seems intentionally vague and misleading when it should be precise and clear. I honestly want to rewrite it.

That's because it is and you're correct that it was an intentional design choice. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot before the gate even opens. They have now spent unknown amounts of hours dealing with tweeted questions, have nominated a lead dev to deal with those questions, have a website to serve as a repository to hold the Q&A and so on. Not what I would have done.

 

[kalil]

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot before the gate even opens.

That can be discussed. 5e is WILDLY popular. The desire for clear and precise rules that you and I share is apparently not particularly widespread.