Magic missile too strong?

[Abraxas]

Not a PC, but a cohort - a rogue/shadowdancers shadow companion was taken out by magic missiles - twice - he never had the character call for one again cause they were too weak.

 

[Mistwell]

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.

My understanding is that the +4 adjustment is the adjustment to AC for hitting one of the people fighting in that melee, not hitting a target well behind them and whose view they are blocking.

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.

I just don't see any evidence in the spell description itself that indicates it's a bead that curves and weaves around objects that are greater in size than an arrow slit. I think you have taken the single example the offerred and draw greater conclusions from it than intended. The spell says if it impacts on a material body, it detonates. You use the normal rules for seeing if a ranged object impacts on a material body accidentally. Unless the spell description says you don't have to use those rules because it magically weaves around non-small barriers, we are stuck with the normal rules. And the normal rules say that cover, even people in the way, can be struck with ranged moving objects.

And I think that is a big reason why some people think magic missle is not overpowered - because they have inadvertedly houseruled fireball to magically weave around barriers and strike tagets in ways that let them more easily strike NPCs while leaving PCs unscathed.

 

[Mistwell]

Just an aside regarding the cover issues

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?

Given we are talking about a 3.5 rule that just calls it cover, I am not sure that it isn't the other way around. Why WOULD they have specified anything with cover when they used an example that is just cover?

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'm confused as to where you are coming from. First you use 3.0 to justify your interpretation of 9/10ths cover, and then disclaim 3.0 when it comes to hitting cover. Is it a 3.0 spell, in which case you can always hit cover, or is it a 3.5 spell, in which case the example is merely cover and not a specific kind of 9/10ths cover?

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

I am not applying a variant rule. Its IN the spell text that you can hit cover with it. It would be a houserule to claim that you can never accidentally hit cover with a fireball.

 

[Mistwell]

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?

Not really. Everyone else seems to be on the topic of direct damage spells. We all agree that there are other options for spells. In fact, I mentioned (and then re-mentioned, and then re-re-mentioned) that one reason why a sorceror would choose to use a magic missle in a higher level spot is because those other non-direct-damage spells are easier to chose because you already have such a universally appealing and powerful direct-damage spell at your disposal that you don't need to burn another spells-known slot on a direct-damage spell and can use that spells-known slot on something else (like the spells you mentioned).

It's not an issue of whether a sorceror can choose other spells. It's a question of whether relative to other spells in it's same category (which is direct damage) magic missle is overpowered. Just like, if discussing whether mage armor is overpowered, we would compare it to other AC boosting spells (or miss chance spells like Blur). And when discussing whether or not Entangle is overpowered, we would compare it to other battlefield control spells (like web and grease and Black Tentacles).

 

[Mistwell]

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.

Yes, definitely, multiple times. It's one of those very few spells that ALWAYS hits, and ALWAYS does damage, and cannot be avoided with evasion. Many a spellcaster have fallen to magic missle. A single casting from a 9th level caster does on average about 18 points damage, which is more than half of an average wizard's hit points of an equivelent level. Two castings will take him down entirely, and that is without any metamagic. The magic missle firing, flying, improved invisible sorceror or wizard can be a real hassle to a mid-level party (and much worse if there is more than one of them).

 

[Victim]

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.

We've lost people to Magic Missile in highly assymetric battles. When our high level PCs attacked an evil cult, the leaders used the weaker people to soften us up. A bunch of like 5th level wizards or so all launched a coordinated volley on one character at a time. After the first round, they lost too many guys for critical levels of firepower, but a cohort bought it.

Generally, Enervation has been the nasty "spam" spell in our games though. Most of the players in our group prefer using sorcerers to wizards, including the main DM, so running out isn't as big a deal.

Also, we usually use higher point buy totals, so most wizards usually make a significant investment in Con to counter their lower HD. And maybe our group just likes Con anyway. I don't think 18 damage is half the 7th wizard's HP in my game.

 

[Hypersmurf]

My understanding is that the +4 adjustment is the adjustment to AC for hitting one of the people fighting in that melee, not hitting a target well behind them and whose view they are blocking.

No, there's a +4 AC for soft cover if the line from your square to your target passes through a square occupied by a creature. It's entirely separate to the penalty for making a ranged attack against a target engaged in melee.

The spell says if it impacts on a material body, it detonates.

That's right.

You use the normal rules for seeing if a ranged object impacts on a material body accidentally. Unless the spell description says you don't have to use those rules because it magically weaves around non-small barriers, we are stuck with the normal rules. And the normal rules say that cover, even people in the way, can be struck with ranged moving objects.

The normal rules (in 3E) say that if an attack roll misses due to cover, it might strike the cover. The normal rules (in 3.5) say that if an attack roll misses due to cover, it misses - there is no chance of it striking the cover. The rules for fireball state that if you attempt to send the bead through a narrow passage, and attack roll to hit the opening is required, and if this misses, the obstacle is struck. If you aren't attempting to send the bead through a narrow passage, no attack roll is called for by the spell text, nor by the rules for area spells.

Note that you don't make an attack roll to strike your target square, modified by cover from the obstacle; you make an attack roll to strike the opening.

If we were using the standard 3E "Striking the cover instead of a missed target" rule (a variant rule in 3.5), we would make an attack roll against the AC of the target grid intersection, modified by the cover bonus of the wall-with-arrow-slit (+10). If we struck that AC, we would hit our target grid intersection. If we missed by 10 or less, we would strike the wall. If we missed by more than 10, we would miss completely.

But instead, we make an attack roll against the AC of the arrowslit - 10, -5 for Dex of 0, plus size modifier. The AC of our target is irrelevant, as is any Cover bonus (since the wall provides no cover to the arrowslit).

It's a completely different mechanic to striking cover, and it applies when sending the bead through a narrow opening.

-Hyp.

 

[Abraxas]

Given we are talking about a 3.5 rule that just calls it cover, I am not sure that it isn't the other way around. Why WOULD they have specified anything with cover when they used an example that is just cover?

Because If it was any amount of cover, and not just what used to be 9/10 cover, why not just say cover? The reference appears, to me at least, to just be a cut and paste job with no consideration of new cover rules.

I'm confused as to where you are coming from. First you use 3.0 to justify your interpretation of 9/10ths cover, and then disclaim 3.0 when it comes to hitting cover. Is it a 3.0 spell, in which case you can always hit cover, or is it a 3.5 spell, in which case the example is merely cover and not a specific kind of 9/10ths cover?

I was just attempting to illustrate that the 3.5 text of the spell appears to use 3.0 rules - in 3.0 if the attack roll misses you could hit cover, in 3.5 if the attack roll misses you don't strike cover (unless you use the variant rule in the DMG).

I am not applying a variant rule. Its IN the spell text that you can hit cover with it. It would be a houserule to claim that you can never accidentally hit cover with a fireball.

I understand it is in the spell description - I am not saying you can never hit cover. However, I believe your interpretation is akin to the variant hitting cover rule in the DMG.
I believe there is a difference between targeting a narrow opening (the arrow slit example in the spell description) and targeting the space around an ally who provides cover to the point you want the fireball to burst from. I think the difference is so great that no attack roll should be required to target the space surrounding an interposing ally because that space isn't a narrow passage.

I am curious, What AC do you give the area surrounding your interposing ally?

 

[WarlockLord]

Yes, definitely, multiple times. It's one of those very few spells that ALWAYS hits, and ALWAYS does damage, and cannot be avoided with evasion. Many a spellcaster have fallen to magic missle. A single casting from a 9th level caster does on average about 18 points damage, which is more than half of an average wizard's hit points of an equivelent level. Two castings will take him down entirely, and that is without any metamagic. The magic missle firing, flying, improved invisible sorceror or wizard can be a real hassle to a mid-level party (and much worse if there is more than one of them).

If your spellcasters are in such a perilous position from one MM, why don't they just slap shield on themselves? In one of my adventures, a PC drow wizard held off a volley of MM's with one shield spell (3 wizards with all MM's prepared). And the MMing flying invisible guy would probably be better off with fireball. Not everyone has evasion and good reflex saves. The universe isn't monks, wraiths, and so forth.

As for that sorceror who used 4th level slots on MMs, well, she reminds me of my old drow shadowcaster. I've discussed him on other threads.

 

[Jhulae]

It's one of those very few spells that ALWAYS hits, and ALWAYS does damage, and cannot be avoided with evasion.

Except if you've got the Shield spell. Or a Brooch of Shielding. Or full concealment. Or Spell Resistance. Or Invisibility (or even better, Improved Invisibility). Or a Minor Globe of Invulnerablility. Or... Well, I think you get the point.

It doesn't *always* hit. It's stopped by a simple 1st level spell and many other ways.

It's *nowhere* as powerful as it's made out to be.

Is it a good spell? No doubt. Is it the 'end all be all' spell as so many claim? Hardly.

Many a spellcaster have fallen to magic missle.

I'm still baffled as to why none of these spellcasters had Shield.. either as a personal spell, scroll, or wand. Honestly, if the PC spellcasters were falling to MM, it seems they deserved it.