poor rational for "updating" Magic Missile?

[Gradine]

I like the new magic missile; as others have pointed out, players now have a greater reason to take the power.

As to the "is it a hit or not a hit" debate, it seems the RAI is more clear than the RAW; thank you modern instantaneous online communication for that. But even without designer confirmation it does not take an incredible leap of logic to rule that a wizard actively sending out a bolt of energy to strike a target is not the same as nor should it be treated the same as a zone or aura. I sense that one of 4e's design goals was to leave as little up to interpretation as possible, which has done nothing but spawn endless arguments over semantics and make "rules-lawyer"-esque DMs even more finicky and restrictive than before.

The problem I think lies with WotC's choice of vocabulary. There's that classic Order of the Stick comic regarding the many uses of the word "level", and that's what's going on here. When you attach firm definitions to words like "Attack" or "Hit", you make it impossible in the eyes of a "rules lawyer" to ever use those words again in their basic dictionary definitions. So when a feat or power says it does something on a "hit" does it mean just a generic "character performs an attack* that does damage" or does it require something under the line item Hit? Note that the above generic examples also uses a word(attack*) that can either have a generic or game-specific definition, leading to even more semantic confusion. If anything that is RAW only ever uses the terms Hit and Attack by their strict definitions, then Magic Missile is not an Attack and it does not constitute a Hit. But since this flies in the face of common sense and clearly stated designer intent, it is clear that in the RAW any instance of the word "hit" or "attack" might just be the generic use the word.

I think the sentiment both of the designers shared regarding "rules lawyers" is their lack of willingness to read between the lines and adjudicate based on common sense.

 

[Baumi]

I like the new Version, it makes the power more distinct to the others. Before there was nearly no reason to take it, a Phantom Bolt, Cloud of Daggers or Ray of Frost (single target At-Will's) were simply far more interesting and the damage was only marginally worse.

 

[Piratecat]

Karinsdad, Aulirophile, see my warnings earlier in the thread.

 

[ExploderWizard]

The original MM had inescapable force, which does normal damage to insubstantial enemies and an additional 1d10 damage. One of my PCs had it and the feat, until he realized I rarely used insubstantial enemies and didn't bother with it anymore.

It was the feat that did that, not the MM itself right?

As to the "is it a hit or not a hit" debate, it seems the RAI is more clear than the RAW; thank you modern instantaneous online communication for that. But even without designer confirmation it does not take an incredible leap of logic to rule that a wizard actively sending out a bolt of energy to strike a target is not the same as nor should it be treated the same as a zone or aura. I sense that one of 4e's design goals was to leave as little up to interpretation as possible, which has done nothing but spawn endless arguments over semantics and make "rules-lawyer"-esque DMs even more finicky and restrictive than before.

The problem I think lies with WotC's choice of vocabulary. There's that classic Order of the Stick comic regarding the many uses of the word "level", and that's what's going on here. When you attach firm definitions to words like "Attack" or "Hit", you make it impossible in the eyes of a "rules lawyer" to ever use those words again in their basic dictionary definitions. So when a feat or power says it does something on a "hit" does it mean just a generic "character performs an attack* that does damage" or does it require something under the line item Hit? Note that the above generic examples also uses a word(attack*) that can either have a generic or game-specific definition, leading to even more semantic confusion. If anything that is RAW only ever uses the terms Hit and Attack by their strict definitions, then Magic Missile is not an Attack and it does not constitute a Hit. But since this flies in the face of common sense and clearly stated designer intent, it is clear that in the RAW any instance of the word "hit" or "attack" might just be the generic use the word.

I think the sentiment both of the designers shared regarding "rules lawyers" is their lack of willingness to read between the lines and adjudicate based on common sense.

Yes. This is a problem when words are given specific definitions in game that do not match the more well understood definition.

The semantics of this remind of some stuff that came up while playing the storytelling card game Once Upon a Time. The cards used in the game had specific items named on them. When another player used one of these "keywords " during play, an opposing player holding a card with that object or named concept could play it as a sort of immediate interrupt and take over the story. Certain words and phrases became pitfalls to avoid while playing . You didn't want to say "old man" during your story. That would be asking someone to steal your turn. Instead, "gentleman of advanced age", or other such nonsense was used to get around the use of the keywords.

It was pretty silly.

 

[Aegeri]

It was the feat that did that, not the MM itself right?

Yes, that is correct.

 

[Scribble]

The semantics of this remind of some stuff that came up while playing the storytelling card game Once Upon a Time. The cards used in the game had specific items named on them. When another player used one of these "keywords " during play, an opposing player holding a card with that object or named concept could play it as a sort of immediate interrupt and take over the story. Certain words and phrases became pitfalls to avoid while playing . You didn't want to say "old man" during your story. That would be asking someone to steal your turn. Instead, "gentleman of advanced age", or other such nonsense was used to get around the use of the keywords.

It was pretty silly.

I don't know... to me that sounds kind of fun. Like those improv exercises. Work your storytelling muscles.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Disrupting spellcasters and attacking incorporeal foes? Magic missile does nothing particular special in these areas. Long range auto damage and minion killing are nice though.

My bad: MM of ADnD 2nd edition could do all this.

First appearance in 4e wasn´t all that good at minion killing, and disrupting spellcasters is mainly a thing of the past!

edit: and inescapable force is so good now, that it is more or less an autowin against insubstantial creatures, because it adds a damage roll to MM, which means everything that applies on rolls does so.

A good feat, very situational, but very rewarding

 

[MrMyth]

I don't think the change needed to be made in any way. I don't think the new version is especially stronger or weaker than the old version, just different.

I am a little sad at the change, because while I am a big fan of WotC producing regular errata, providing it for something that didn't need it isn't really the best approach.

But overall, a group can easily ignore it or not, as they desire. There is nothing really to be worried about here, save for those who want to make a mountain out of a magic molehill.

 

[Maximilia]

We had our first game session after the errata and as a wizard who took MM... I hate the change. It's boring. We often have situations where we fight at range, and I and our seeker (I think that's his class) are the ones with range. I only have a couple spells with range 20, and one of them is MM... and this last session was completely unfun with it. I barely made any combat rolls, it was just "This guys takes 7. And then I take a nap until my next turn."

Another thing to consider is that the damage is NOT modified by any items now--it's just the base 2+Int modifier.

EDIT: Our GM already said he would move it back to the old version for us, but if he hadn't, the next level I would have dropped MM like a hot potato.

 

[ExploderWizard]

But overall, a group can easily ignore it or not, as they desire. There is nothing really to be worried about here, save for those who want to make a mountain out of a magic molehill.

I haven't checked yet but you can choose either option in the CB?

If not then these kind of changes ARE kind of a big deal.