Magic missile too strong?

[Ridley's Cohort]

You are also forgetting that 99% of the time the Wizard can just aim 6"-12" over the heads of all combatants, and she would get the desired AoE with no attack roll required even under the most restrictive possible sane interpretation of the RAW.

 

[IanB]

I agree with Hypersmurf here - there's no basis for simple cover from a creature to invoke the fireball targeting rules.

 

[Grog]

I agree with Hypersmurf here - there's no basis for simple cover from a creature to invoke the fireball targeting rules.

Yes. And, as Vegepygmy noted, most area spells (Glitterdust, for example) don't have the fireball targeting rules anyway.

 

[Mistwell]

You point your finger and determine the range (distance and height) at which the fireball is to burst. A glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body or solid barrier prior to attaining the prescribed range, blossoms into the fireball at that point. (An early impact results in an early detonation.) If you attempt to send the bead through a narrow passage, such as through an arrow slit, you must “hit” the opening with a ranged touch attack, or else the bead strikes the barrier and detonates prematurely.

Passing a Medium creature in a 5 foot square isn't a narrow passage such as an arrow slit. I point my finger and determine the range (distance and height) at which the fireball is to burst - I don't need to be able to see that spot, I just need to determine the distance and height.

Since it's not being sent through a narrow passage, no ranged touch attack is necessary.

-Hyp.

Is it your opinion that the bead travels in in a zig-zagging, curving, automatic path to it's destination (like Magic Missle) as long as it doesn't pass through specifically an arrow-slit sized path?

From my reading, it's a staight line. The arrow-slit is just one example and not an exhaustive list of what is meant by "impacting on a material body". You draw a straight line from any part of your square to the destination point, and if there is a material body in that path then there is a chance you will impact that material body. People move. Whatever gap you were aiming for might in fact be covered with a person by the time your bead gets there. Just like people provide cover for regular ranged attacks, they do the same for shooting a magic bead at a point in space. I do not think this is a house rule. I think the RAW states that you have a chance of hitting a creature that is between you and the point you are aiming at, and provides for a ranged touch attack to hit a target that has something interferring with your ability to hit your target.

 

[Mistwell]

I'll just let Hyp speak for me in this thread. Getting past two guys standing next to one another is far easier than shooting through an arrow slit.

And even if you did require an attack roll... it would be against AC 9 or so (base 10, -5 for immobile object = Dex 0, +4 for cover). Shouldn't be problematic in the least.

How is getting BETWEEN two actively moving, fighting people easier than getting in a fixed arrow slit that is not moving?

 

[Mistwell]

Yes. And, as Vegepygmy noted, most area spells (Glitterdust, for example) don't have the fireball targeting rules anyway.

We are comparing apples to apples.

As I noted, as far as core rules, fireball IS the comparable spell for the spell slots we are talking about. Glitterdust isn't a direct damage spell, and that's the topic under discussion - direct damage spells.

There are lots of utility spells we could be discussing, like web and grease and glitterdust and invisibility and silent image, etc.. But for the realm of direct damage spells, you have ranged attacks (scorching ray), saving-throw bursts (fireball), and no-attack no-save no-burst (magic missle). Magic missle is the only direct damage spell that requires no attack roll, no saving throw, and no risk of hitting your ally. That is what makes it so universally useful. And given it is a first level spell, it's overpowered.

 

[Hypersmurf]

How is getting BETWEEN two actively moving, fighting people easier than getting in a fixed arrow slit that is not moving?

Well, if we again look at the 3E rules (which took a slightly less arbitrary approach to cover and arrow slits, when the fireball text was originally written), let's try shooting an arrow at a target on the other side of two actively moving, fighting people, and then at one on the other side of a fixed arrow slit that is not moving.

Bonus to target's AC in case 1: +4.
Bonus to target's AC in case 2: +10.

It looks like, when the text about fitting the fireball through an arrow slit was originally written, it was certainly considered to be easier to get between two actively moving, fighting people easier than getting in a fixed arrow slit that is not moving.

Is it your opinion that the bead travels in in a zig-zagging, curving, automatic path to it's destination (like Magic Missle) as long as it doesn't pass through specifically an arrow-slit sized path?

If that's what it needs to do, sure.

By 'specifically', I'd read instead 'or equivalent', but I don't consider half cover to be equivalently narrow to 9/10 cover.

Let's say I can see a person on the other side of a glass door. I can't cast Charm Person on him - I don't have line of effect.

Now let's say there's a 1' square cat door in the bottom corner of the door. Drawing a straight line from me to the person still goes through the glass. But the one foot hole in the door means that the glass doesn't block line of effect - even though it's down in the corner.

Now, instead of Charm Person, I want to cast a Fireball to burst over the person's head. The spell has line of effect, but the bead has to pass through a narrow passage - the cat door - to get there. If I can make a ranged touch attack on the cat door, I can pass the bead through the gap - but I don't see anything prohibiting the curved path, down from my finger, through the cat door, then up above the person's head, as long as I make that touch attack roll successfully. I've got line of effect to the place I want the spell to originate, and I hit the gap with my RTA.

Now let's swap the glass door for two guys fighting each other. There's now so much empty space between me and the point of origin that no RTA is necessary - I'm no longer passing the bead through a narrow passage.

-Hyp.

 

[Abraxas]

Just an aside regarding the cover issues

From my reading, it's a staight line. The arrow-slit is just one example and not an exhaustive list of what is meant by "impacting on a material body".

The arrow slit does, however, give a reference to the amount of cover needed before an attack roll is required. It originated in 3.0 where an arrow slit was linked directly to a given amount of cover (nine-tenths). If an attack roll was needed for any amount of cover why wouldn't they have just said whenever the target point has cover with respect to you an attack roll is required?

You draw a straight line from any part of your square to the destination point, and if there is a material body in that path then there is a chance you will impact that material body. People move. Whatever gap you were aiming for might in fact be covered with a person by the time your bead gets there. Just like people provide cover for regular ranged attacks, they do the same for shooting a magic bead at a point in space.

There is a difference though - no other spell (and no other ranged attack) hits the cover if your attack roll misses. Hitting cover, in general, was a 3.0 mechanic and is now an optional mechanic in 3.5 (DMG pg24).

I do not think this is a house rule. I think the RAW states that you have a chance of hitting a creature that is between you and the point you are aiming at, and provides for a ranged touch attack to hit a target that has something interferring with your ability to hit your target.

I believe it is an optional rule extrapolated from nine-tenths cover to any degree of cover. By the way, do you also allow the character creating cover to be missed (and the original target to still be hit) if the flubbed attack roll to place the spell would normally miss him due to his dodge bonus to AC? If not I believe your application of the variant rule is extremely harsh. YMMV

 

[Grog]

We are comparing apples to apples.

As I noted, as far as core rules, fireball IS the comparable spell for the spell slots we are talking about. Glitterdust isn't a direct damage spell, and that's the topic under discussion - direct damage spells.

No, the topic under discussion is combat spells. As I've said on multiple occasions in this thread, there are many things a Wizard/Sorceror can do to assist in combat besides casting direct damage spells. And in many cases, those other things are going to be vastly more useful than doing a small amount (which is what Magic Missile does) of direct damage to a single enemy.

Perhaps your continuing focus on direct damage is part of the problem?

 

[WarlockLord]

Has anone here ever lost a PC to a magic missile? And I don't mean a PC that's badly wounded, I mean: Has a magic missile ever wrecked your whole day? Ray of enfeeblement can. Fireball can. I have never, ever, seen a PC go down because of magic missile. Even a mage can take a hit from that. If one of my PC's get's hit, they'd take it , laugh, and respond with lethal force.