Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 6662162" data-attributes="member: 2011">The strike simultaneously clause of one spell should not indicate how another spell works unless the actual rules state so. Spells like Scorching Ray do not indicate that they are non-simultaneous for the "at the same time" clause of page 196 to be recognized. Nothing in Scorching Ray or Eldritch Blast indicates that the spells are non-simultaneous.In fact, Magic Missile can have multiple damage rolls (multiple targets) and Scorching Ray cannot according to the original rules (page 196). So the errata doesn't actually do what he states that it does in his tweet. His tweet indicates the exact opposite of what the rules combined with the errata states. Very odd. If someone just read the rules and the errata, they would never come to the conclusion that he did in his tweet.The entire concept of non-simultaneous spells opens up a can of worms. I declare a ready action that if anyone attacks the Fighter with a spell, then I will Dispel Magic that spell (I do not have Counterspell prepped today). So, the enemy Wizard attacks the Rogue, then the Cleric, then the Fighter with the Scorching Ray spell and I only stop the Fighter portion. But if he cast Magic Missile, I would stop the entire spell. And this is supposed to be intuited via the core rules and the errata. That's not happening at most tables.I think it is funny that the errata doesn't actually clarify anything. And I don't see why all of the targets of Fireball get the extra damage of Empowered Evocation, but only one of the targets of Scorching Ray does. Really odd.</blockquote>

Verification