Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7505616" data-attributes="member: 6919838">I support the Sage normally and even I say his selective reasoning here is dubious - albeit official. The mm spell says each dart does d4+1 to &quot;its target&quot; which is a lot different than the wording of actual AoE spells like fireball. He ignores or supplants that difference to declare them as &quot;like AoE spells&quot; (or was it sort of like) because of the simultaneous ruling which he then decides is what &quot;at the same time&quot; require under doing damage section - although one could just as easily ruled a spell like scorching ray counts as well for the &quot;one roll hurts all targets&quot; because it is an instantaneous spell. Basically there is a &quot;pair of rules&quot; you can take from the same sections and the same spells to make it treat scorching ray the same as mm or to make it different in regards to roll for each or roll once.But the difference is, what about say Acid Spray which does not have a to-hit roll but also does not have an AoE and does not have the words simultaneous anywhere? No AoE - pick one or two targets - not three even if in ssme hex.Not simultaneous- or does instantaneous here for this spell count for the &quot;at the same time&quot;Definitely no to-hit roll so not sequenced.That is my problem with the ruling he chose, it created a odd dividing line for this one or many rolls question that leaves a lot of gaps, instead of the other pair of rules which would have made it more distinct.Either of these seems clearer in the big &quot;how this rule can work in practice...Instant dmg vs multiple targets triggers one rollOrIf you select targets (as opposed to everyone in an area) its individual rolls Moreover, the oddest thing is the less clear most obscure pairing he chose actually served to boost on of the already traditionally overturned spells for its level. He admits balance is one of the last considerations but here he seemed to go out of his way to find the counter to balance solution. It's not a ruling I find myself able to endorse, frankly.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="5ekyu, post: 7505616, member: 6919838"] I support the Sage normally and even I say his selective reasoning here is dubious - albeit official. The mm spell says each dart does d4+1 to "its target" which is a lot different than the wording of actual AoE spells like fireball. He ignores or supplants that difference to declare them as "like AoE spells" (or was it sort of like) because of the simultaneous ruling which he then decides is what "at the same time" require under doing damage section - although one could just as easily ruled a spell like scorching ray counts as well for the "one roll hurts all targets" because it is an instantaneous spell. Basically there is a "pair of rules" you can take from the same sections and the same spells to make it treat scorching ray the same as mm or to make it different in regards to roll for each or roll once. But the difference is, what about say Acid Spray which does not have a to-hit roll but also does not have an AoE and does not have the words simultaneous anywhere? No AoE - pick one or two targets - not three even if in ssme hex. Not simultaneous- or does instantaneous here for this spell count for the "at the same time" Definitely no to-hit roll so not sequenced. That is my problem with the ruling he chose, it created a odd dividing line for this one or many rolls question that leaves a lot of gaps, instead of the other pair of rules which would have made it more distinct. Either of these seems clearer in the big "how this rule can work in practice... Instant dmg vs multiple targets triggers one roll Or If you select targets (as opposed to everyone in an area) its individual rolls Moreover, the oddest thing is the less clear most obscure pairing he chose actually served to boost on of the already traditionally overturned spells for its level. He admits balance is one of the last considerations but here he seemed to go out of his way to find the counter to balance solution. It's not a ruling I find myself able to endorse, frankly. [/QUOTE]

Verification