Rod of Absorption and Witch Bolt

So my question is if Witch Bolt initially misses, can an enemy potentially use the Rod of Absorption to absorb the subsequent damage? if it does, then does Witch Bolt fizzle? What are the rules!!! and something like magic missile. does each missile count as spell energy? or do all of them count towards one collection of spell levels? The Questions!!!

With witch bolt, I’d rule yes, you can use it to absorb the subsequent damage. It says only “a spell that is targeting you” there’s no language about doing it when the spell is cast, so I’d say the witch bolt effect qualifies. If you do, then, as the item states, the spell ends.

With magic missile, first all of the missiles would need to be targeting you. If even one of them is aiming at someone else, the rod would not work. But if it did, it would only count as 1 spell, at whatever level you cast the spell.

edit:ninja’d 

Quote from Xalthu >>

With witch bolt, I’d rule yes, you can use it to absorb the subsequent damage. It says only “a spell that is targeting you” there’s no language about doing it when the spell is cast, so I’d say the witch bolt effect qualifies. If you do, then, as the item states, the spell ends.

With magic missile, first all of the missiles would need to be targeting you. If even one of them is aiming at someone else, the rod would not work. But if it did, it would only count as 1 spell, at whatever level you cast the spell.

Why would all of the missiles need to be targeting you? It is not an AE in any conventional sense. It has multiple specific targets. It might be targeting you and one or more others, but it is specifically targeting you, in addition to specifically targeting them. 

Quote from Kotath >>

Quote from Xalthu >>

With witch bolt, I’d rule yes, you can use it to absorb the subsequent damage. It says only “a spell that is targeting you” there’s no language about doing it when the spell is cast, so I’d say the witch bolt effect qualifies. If you do, then, as the item states, the spell ends.

With magic missile, first all of the missiles would need to be targeting you. If even one of them is aiming at someone else, the rod would not work. But if it did, it would only count as 1 spell, at whatever level you cast the spell.

 

Why would all of the missiles need to be targeting you? It is not an AE in any conventional sense. It has multiple specific targets. It might be targeting you and one or more others, but it is specifically targeting you, in addition to specifically targeting them. 

 In the 2024 rules, the spell states "While holding this rod, you can take a Reaction to absorb a spell that is targeting only you and doesn’t create an area of effect." So for the 2024 version I would have to rule that all of the Magic Missile darts must be targeting only you. The wording is identical in the 2014 ruleset as well. 

Quote from MaximusArael020 >>

Quote from Kotath >>

Quote from Xalthu >>

With witch bolt, I’d rule yes, you can use it to absorb the subsequent damage. It says only “a spell that is targeting you” there’s no language about doing it when the spell is cast, so I’d say the witch bolt effect qualifies. If you do, then, as the item states, the spell ends.

With magic missile, first all of the missiles would need to be targeting you. If even one of them is aiming at someone else, the rod would not work. But if it did, it would only count as 1 spell, at whatever level you cast the spell.

 

Why would all of the missiles need to be targeting you? It is not an AE in any conventional sense. It has multiple specific targets. It might be targeting you and one or more others, but it is specifically targeting you, in addition to specifically targeting them. 

 In the 2024 rules, the spell states "While holding this rod, you can take a Reaction to absorb a spell that is targeting only you and doesn’t create an area of effect." So for the 2024 version I would have to rule that all of the Magic Missile darts must be targeting only you. The wording is identical in the 2014 ruleset as well. 

Fair enough. I did not see that qualifier mentioned earlier in the discussion.

thank you everyone for the input! :)