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

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)
Or possibly intentionally. It's an iconic spell, and only one wizard sub-class gets the bonus - the one that is supposed to be damage focused.

Given conflicting interpretations from Mearls and Crawford and overall lack of clarity, I'd say there's no intentional design going on with respect to how magic missile interacts with the evoker bonus OR with how it should be rolled. Letting magic missile slip through the cracks seems far more believable than intentionally packing multiple and significant changes to the magic missile's historical conception and then not addressing any of them.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

guachi

Hero
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.

A DM with with your attitude about "garbage" rulings and "tweet-waving idiots" isn't one worth playing with. It shows a profound disrespect for people you disagree with.
 


Caliban

Rules Monkey
Given conflicting interpretations from Mearls and Crawford and overall lack of clarity, I'd say there's no intentional design going on with respect to how magic missile interacts with the evoker bonus OR with how it should be rolled. Letting magic missile slip through the cracks seems far more believable than intentionally packing multiple and significant changes to the magic missile's historical conception and then not addressing any of them.

Sure, that's entirely possible. But, like me, you don't really know for sure.

Send Crawford a tweet. Maybe he'll answer you. :)
 

5ekyu

Hero
Magic Missile specifies simultaneous damage - Scorching Ray does not.

Scorching ray isn't damaging them all at once, it's doing it on different attacks. The rule doesn't apply. As I already stated in the bit of my post you quoted.

Magic missile also doesn't have attack rolls. It doesn't even have a saving throw. But it does do damage simultaneously to all the targets, as specified in the spell itself. That's the important bit, since there is a rule specifically for spells that do that. Most of them are AoE spells, but Magic Missile is an exception - mainly because they wanted it to act like the iconic version of the spell which automatically hit. (In 4th edition you had to make attack rolls with Magic Missile.)

In this edition, Magic Missile is kind of a unique spell in that is targeted, but also acts like an AoE in some ways.

Let me make a point about the bolded part.

There is no "rule" about one damage roll for "simultaneous" damage.

All that rule says is "at the same time" not specifically "simultaneous."

is this persnickety - sure but here is the point... the sage rulings in this case and in others are often persnickety on specific single world or pairs of word combos.

if the one damage roll rule said "simultaneous" then absolutely, we would look for all spells which say "simultaneous."

But, instead we have ONE CASE where the word simultaneous is in a spell and is ruled as sufficient for the one roll even tho the spell says each dart does d4+1 to "its target."

The other pairing of persnickety words and clauses we could have used is "instantaneous". You could just as easily paired "at the same time" and "instantaneous" to be the magic words that invoke the one roll rule.

But instead we got this "simultaneous" rule.

here is my problem with the ruling...

So what about acid splash?

Not one part of acid splash says "simultaneous."

Not one part of acid splash says it is an Area spell. It is a select your targets spell.

Its not an attack roll spells - tho attack roll is not required or disallowed as far as one roll rule goes - it just requires multiple targets "at the same time" (and accoring to twitter now that requires the word simultaneous.

So, does acid splash meet the requirements of the one damage roll rule now that we know "similtaneous" is the key word for "at the same time"?

We could get into the large number of other "nowhere mentions simultaneous" pick-yer-targets spells and especially all the cases with twinned but simply put the ruling raises more questions than it answers by it keying on "simultaneous" and not on something like "instantaneous."

Its by no means game breaking either way but when you have an easy 2-4 different "link these towo to get answer" possibilities its not good to choose the one which leaves more questions and generates more new questions than the others.

Again this is coming from a generally favorable supporter of the Sage advice and rulings.
 

Mike Mearls stated multiple times that "Jeremy is the rules guy" and that his replies are only "How he would rule it at his table". So if you want to strictly play RAI, then you have to follow Jeremy and not Mike. That Mike Mearls doesn't follow everything Jeremy rules just shows that the designers are perfectly okay with DMs making their own rulings.

Also I'm pretty sure Jeremy as the "rules guy" pretty much wrote everything you can find in the basic rules himself, so I find it questionable that he could even be "wrong" on how a rule was intended. The intention probably came straight from his brain after all and I assume he isn't insane.
 

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
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.

So you turn around and insult people? Calling someone a jerk directly or by implication is making it personal. Don’t make it personal again.
 
Last edited:


S'mon

Legend
A DM with with your attitude about "garbage" rulings and "tweet-waving idiots" isn't one worth playing with. It shows a profound disrespect for people you disagree with.

Well I wouldn't want you playing with me, but IRL I don't see this kind of weird behaviour in actual 5e games. Used to happen a bit in 3e maybe, but 5e I've never seen it outside of ENW.

I'm really shocked by this weird cult that seems to have grown up around JC though. Maybe it's the initials. I don't remember anything like it in 4e - and 4e was much more a rules-based game.
 

Caliban

Rules Monkey
So you turn around and insult people? Calling someone a jerk directly or by implication is making it personal. Don’t make it personal again.

Thank you for that valuable advice. Care to share it with the instigators as well, or am I somehow special?

Mod Note: Folks, do note The Rules. If you have an issue with moderation, take it up with the moderator in a PM or e-mail. Do not argue in-thread, as that's a major off-topic distraction from the discussion. ~Umbran
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Remove ads

Top