poor rational for "updating" Magic Missile?

[Nifft]

But you are still making a Ranged Attack, you're still prone to Opportunity Attacks, and you're still affected by any "attack an ally" mark effects.

There is actually quite a lot of debate over whether the new MM is "an attack".

I have no opinion on this issue: there are significant exploits for both interpretations, so IMHO balance won't perfect either way.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Aulirophile]

All of these are false.

It doesn't miss, it's an affect that doesn't require a roll to deal damage.
It still kills minions (attacks that miss never deal damage to a minion, this never misses.)
All PC marked target attack features would still be triggered if an enemy used MM and visa versa. (combat challenge, divine challenge, warden's fury, etc.) MM is still an attack, it has no attack roll and doesn't hit or miss, it deals its damage as an effect.

This is going to be my only response in this thread after this post.

Attacking, by RAW, requires an attack roll to see if you hit versus a defense. If you do not roll to see if you hit, you are not attacking. What type of power you use to do this is irrelevant. Some utility powers attack, some attack powers do not attack. "Attack Power" and "attack" are not synonymous.

Magic Missile has no exception to this rule. Yes, I know about that text, no example text written before the errata that would also make a burst attack with a bow ranged attack is not a rule.

And I'm really not going to respond to anyone who argues.

 

[doctorhook]

I was also unsure about the reason for the revision to Magic Missile, but I accepted it. I haven't made a Wizard in a while, and so I didn't realize how much the old version had slid out of favour on the CharOp boards.

I was fine with the attack-roll-style of MM, and so I'm mildly confused about the revision (or rather, reversion) of MM to auto-hit. That said, I like updates, and I trust where WotC is going with this, so I remain cautiously optimistic, as always.

I'm very interested to hear how a power that is an automatic hit never hits.

Please continue.

It's a semantics issue. In conversational English, yes, the new Magic Missile can "hit" a monster, but in 4E rules jargon, it merely "has the effect of damaging" a monster. When you're talking about what your Wizard character has done, you can say "hit", but when you're talking about the specific rules of 4E, you can't say "hit", because "hit" has a specific meaning which does not apply to the new Magic Missile in a rules sense.

 

[KidSnide]

I like the fact that they added an power like the new Magic Missile to the list of wizard at-will powers. I strongly suspect that they came up with this power (and play-tested it) as a part of the Essentials goal of a more "classic" D&D feel. 9 times out of 10, WotC would just introduce this as a new power and leave the old magic missile alone. Their problem was that the "new" magic missile is so much more like the AD&D/2e/3e magic missile than the "old" 4e magic missile ever was, so it would look weird as a "arcane missile." Thus, they made an exception to their usual technique of improving powers through addition rather than errata.

I think their explanation was fine. There is no rationale, except that Magic Missile is an iconic power and they wanted to match it up with the iconic effect.

-KS

 

[Otterscrubber]

This change fels like a smokescreen. Like when they are passing a law about gay marriage or anti smoking to distract folks when there ia a big corporate deregulation law about to pass under the radar. What are you up to WotC? What are you up to?.....

 

[Vaeron]

I think it's a terrible decision. They caved into the people who said magic missiles should always hit. Yeah, but back in the day magic missile was essentially a DAILY power (ie a 1st level wizard had 1 magic missile per day). The new version was much more powerful as it was, in that it could be used over and over. I think this was a silly, silly decision. They caved to a portion of the populace that was being irrational, and now that they have it seems, spontaneously, people have realized they were being irrational in complaining about it in the first place.

It was such a totally unnecessary change. BUT they have been saying for a while that many wizard abilities are underpowered as they were the first controllers designed (and it seems that Essentials is making all wizard encounter powers have miss effects (suggesting wizard is one of the classes where dailies might be being altered in regards to dailies)) so what we're seeing is an attempt to beef wizards up.

I appreciate that... But this auto-hit thing sits poorly with me. It seems to be throwing everything about 4e design out the window to placate a subset of the gaming population t hat is going to complain NO MATTER WHAT.

 

[BrokeAndDrive]

Repeat after me please:

"It's only a game. It's only a game."

 

[doctorhook]

...Back in the day magic missile was essentially a DAILY power (ie a 1st level wizard had 1 magic missile per day). The new version was much more powerful as it was, in that it could be used over and over.

Ever played Baldur's Gate? Ever cheat at it? Slap a pair of Rings of Wizardry on a decent-level Mage, and you became a Magic Missile machine gun, because it was arguably the best 1st-level spell around. Hell, even if you weren't cheating, you would usual try to memorize as many Magic Missiles every day as you could. It wasn't a superpower by a long shot, but it was a strong spell and it was plenty better than throwing daggers.

...I'm not really sure what I'm arguing here. I'm mostly just sharing.

...This auto-hit thing sits poorly with me. It seems to be throwing everything about 4e design out the window to placate a subset of the gaming population t hat is going to complain NO MATTER WHAT.

I agree with you about not pandering to "that crowd", but I think you're wrong about this case. Magic Missile needed a revision, in order to keep up with the Joneses, but because it's such an iconic part of D&D, it got special treatment, where other powers would simply be replaced. The fact that the revision made it more like previous edition's Magic Missile is probably incidental.

 

[KarinsDad]

Attacking, by RAW, requires an attack roll to see if you hit versus a defense. If you do not roll to see if you hit, you are not attacking.

Not according to the PHB page 57 under the Attack section:

Most attack powers that deal damage require you to make an attack roll.

And I'm really not going to respond to anyone who argues.

Feel free to not respond since the PHB RAW disagrees with your opinion.

 

[Aulirophile]

Sigh, can't help it.

"Attack Power" and "attack" are not synonymous. See the word power in your quote? See it? Attack powers are not necessarily attacks. It helps, when quoting text, that you actually read it. Guess what reading it properly means? That your quote has zero relevance!

Admin here. News flash: it's possible to disagree with someone without being a jerk. Heck, it's mandatory. Please do so. - Pcat