The wording is troublesome, but a damage roll against the cursed target in the context of a normal attack is easily understood...but in the case of something like Fireball or Magic Missile, if the cursed target is a target of the damage roll, then the wording is explicit in that you add the proficiency bonus to the damage roll. It 100% ruins the theme and apparent intent of the ability so I am not arguing that it is a good thing...rather I am pointing out that as it currently stands I think it needs errata or clarification if this is actually something the designers intended, unless there is a specific rule that counters the way it is written...
What I'm saying is that the rules in the book, RAW, don't strictly define what a "damage roll" is, nor the effect of applying multipliers to that roll that may relate to only some affected targets. The rules don't define that adding a modifier to a damage roll automatically applies that modifier to all targets. That is just not written in RAW. The rules are written for calculating damage for a single target, then for multi-target situations all it says is that you only roll the dice once - modifiers are not mentioned.
If RAW is ambiguous, then all you have is RAI, and I think we all here agree on what the intention is.
The rules actually do define what a damage roll is...it is under combat just FYI. That's why the whole thing isn't just an ambiguous mess, but rather more clearly defined.
What I'm saying is that the rules in the book, RAW, don't strictly define what a "damage roll" is, nor the effect of applying multipliers to that roll that may relate to only some affected targets. The rules don't define that adding a modifier to a damage roll automatically applies that modifier to all targets. That is just not written in RAW. The rules are written for calculating damage for a single target, then for multi-target situations all it says is that you only roll the dice once - modifiers are not mentioned.
If RAW is ambiguous, then all you have is RAI, and I think we all here agree on what the intention is.
The rules actually do define what a damage roll is...it is under combat just FYI. That's why the whole thing isn't just an ambiguous mess, but rather more clearly defined.
Yeah, I know about that section. That is the section that I have been talking about this whole time. What I'm saying is that that section does not say what you are saying it says. It says "You roll the damage die or dice, add any modifiers, and apply the damage to your target." Then later it says "If a spell or other effect deals damage to more than one target at the same time, roll the damage once for all of them." And I am pointing out that it only says to *roll* once for damage - it does not then say that the exact same damage modifiers apply in regards to every single target. It doesn't say the opposite either. Thus it is ambiguous on that point.
Taken as a whole, the rules clearly allow for different targets of the same effect to take different amounts of damage from that effect - even though dice were only rolled once: one target has vulnerability, one target passed its save, one target has the Heavy Armor Master feat, one target is coated in flammable oil, and so on. I suggest that the hexblade curse is just one more damage modifier against only that target, and not any other targets which happen to be being damaged by that same roll of dice.
The case for individual rolls per missile can be made by pointing out that the spell says "A dart deals 1d4 + 1 force damage". The spell creates several instances of an effect template, not one single effect covering an area. The rules for multi-target spells show only examples of areas of effect, not single instances of effect (e.g. scorching ray, which is also debatable depending on how burdensome one wants to make the issue).
If the text read "All darts deals 1d4 + 1 force damage", then it would make sense to roll once. Because it creates individual darts and then states the rules that those darts each follow individually, it follows that regardless of the timing of impact there is a new roll for each dart.
Whenever you make a damage roll against a cursed target, it takes an additional amount of damage equal to your proficiency modifier.
I'm actually not seeing any difference that this would make over the current reading in regards to MM or Fireball. It's still telling me the same thing, which tells me that your reading would still apply the damage to the MM damage roll and then propagate to each of its targets.
The current text adds the damage to the damage roll, which would then apply to all targets hit. The proposed change inflicts the damage directly to the creature cursed without affecting other targets.
Ok. Going to play a little bit of rules Frankenstein to describe the order of events using only rule text from: magic missile, Hexblade's curse, and Damage rolls. Here we go.
Each weapon, spell, and harmful monster ability specifies the damage it deals. You create three glowing darts of magical force. Each dart hits a creature of your choice that you can see within range. A dart deals 1d4 + 1 force damage to its target. You gain a bonus to damage rolls against the cursed target. The bonus equals your proficiency bonus. The darts all strike simultaneously. You roll the damage die or dice, add any modifiers, and apply the damage to your target.
Didn't need the "more than one target" rule, because the spell specifies that the darts deal the damage and each dart has 1 target.
To summarize: Following the description of the spell trumps following the "more than one target" rule. Each dart rolls its damage to deal to its target individually, and adds modifiers (like the curse) individually (so curse damage only adds to curse target). Then the damage of multiple darts with one target is totaled up and dealt as a sum.
The ruling is alive, and it is RAW. Any questions?
Whenever you make a damage roll against a cursed target, it takes an additional amount of damage equal to your proficiency modifier.
I'm actually not seeing any difference that this would make over the current reading in regards to MM or Fireball. It's still telling me the same thing, which tells me that your reading would still apply the damage to the MM damage roll and then propagate to each of its targets.
The current text adds the damage to the damage roll, which would then apply to all targets hit. The proposed change inflicts the damage directly to the creature cursed without affecting other targets.
Current text might mean that. What is the definition of "damage rolls *against* the cursed target"? Is that a damage roll for which the cursed target is *the* target, or is it a damage roll where the cursed target is one of the chosen targets, or does it also cover any damage role for an area damage effect which might affect the cursed target (and what happens if that cursed target passes a save and avoids any damage, is the damage roll still increased), or is it any damage roll which will harm the cursed target's interests? These are non-defined terms in the PHB or DMG so any appeal to a definitive RAW is difficult.
Area effect roll with a save would have the same roll and each creature would have a save opportunity to take half or no damage depending on the spell. Between saves, resistances, and vulnerabilities, there are enough instances of specific trumping general that I'm having a hard time understanding the disconnect.
Further, in one of the Sage Advice it says Crawford says it depends on the wording whether +damage affects all bolts or not. Hexblade curse says, "You gain a bonus to damage rolls against the cursed target. The bonus equals your proficiency bonus." If the damage is only calculated against 1 target and you are targeting more than 1 target, what in any of it says that the player gets to determine which target determines the damage? The DM is the rules interpreter and your reading gives the DM just as much incentive to abuse it going the other direction. But if we factor in that the bonus is added to the damage roll specifically made against the cursed creature, it doesn't matter how many other targets are hit, the modifier will be applied to the cursed creature. Or are you wanting to add +2 damage to each creature affected by fireball too?
But if we factor in that the bonus is added to the damage roll specifically made against the cursed creature, it doesn't matter how many other targets are hit, the modifier will be applied to the cursed creature. Or are you wanting to add +2 damage to each creature affected by fireball too?
That's the problem. The modifier is not applied to the cursed creature, but to the damage roll. And since there is only one damage roll, then every target takes more damage, since they all use the same damage roll. Per those rules, Fireball would also add the +2 damage to the roll, and therefore every target would take extra damage.
I'm not saying that was the intention, nor am I saying I would insist on it being run that way in games I play, but that's how it is written. (It might have been the intention, too... a sort of "jinx" curse, where others near the target are also somewhat affected by the curse.)
But if we factor in that the bonus is added to the damage roll specifically made against the cursed creature, it doesn't matter how many other targets are hit, the modifier will be applied to the cursed creature. Or are you wanting to add +2 damage to each creature affected by fireball too?
That's the problem. The modifier is not applied to the cursed creature, but to the damage roll. And since there is only one damage roll, then every target takes more damage, since they all use the same damage roll. Per those rules, Fireball would also add the +2 damage to the roll, and therefore every target would take extra damage.
I'm not saying that was the intention, nor am I saying I would insist on it being run that way in games I play, but that's how it is written. (It might have been the intention, too... a sort of "jinx" curse, where others near the target are also somewhat affected by the curse.)
There are two things:
The damage roll
The total damage after applying the Curse to the damage roll.
The fact that you apply the Curse damage to the damage roll indicates that the Curse damage is not part of the damage roll :) A rule saying "Add A to B" clearly indicates that A is not part of B. Otherwise, you could not add A to B. So in this case, we apply the same Damage Roll to all MM targets, but then add the Curse bonus to the Damage Roll where it applies, which is just the Curse target.
So you have a spell that applies one damage roll to multiple targets. Then you have a feature that adds damage to the damage roll versus one of the targets. That you are supposed to add something to the damage roll against one target does not mean that you aren't still using the same damage roll for all the targets. The 'damage roll' is not the same thing as 'the damage roll plus all the bonuses'.
If the damage roll was identical to the numbers from the dice plus all bonuses, you'd have infinite damage. Seriously--if we define 'Damage Roll' as 'what the dice say plus all the bonuses, including the Curse feature', then here would be the result:
Roll the dice. This is currently the Damage Roll.
Curse says "add this number to the damage roll". So you add the Curse bonus.
If we say that this total is now the 'Damage Roll', then...
We add the Curse bonus again, because that feature says to add it to the Damage Roll. And what we got after step 2 is the Damage Roll.
But then this is the new 'Damage Roll'. So...
We add the Curse bonus again, because we are supposed to add that to the Damage Roll.
And etc.
'Damage Roll' and the damage from the Hexblade Curse are separate things.
But if we factor in that the bonus is added to the damage roll specifically made against the cursed creature, it doesn't matter how many other targets are hit, the modifier will be applied to the cursed creature. Or are you wanting to add +2 damage to each creature affected by fireball too?
That's the problem. The modifier is not applied to the cursed creature, but to the damage roll. And since there is only one damage roll, then every target takes more damage, since they all use the same damage roll. Per those rules, Fireball would also add the +2 damage to the roll, and therefore every target would take extra damage.
I'm not saying that was the intention, nor am I saying I would insist on it being run that way in games I play, but that's how it is written. (It might have been the intention, too... a sort of "jinx" curse, where others near the target are also somewhat affected by the curse.)
There are two things:
The damage roll
The total damage after applying the Curse to the damage roll.
The fact that you apply the Curse damage to the damage roll indicates that the Curse damage is not part of the damage roll :) A rule saying "Add A to B" clearly indicates that A is not part of B. Otherwise, you could not add A to B. So in this case, we apply the same Damage Roll to all MM targets, but then add the Curse bonus to the Damage Roll where it applies, which is just the Curse target.
So you have a spell that applies one damage roll to multiple targets. Then you have a feature that adds damage to the damage roll versus one of the targets. That you are supposed to add something to the damage roll against one target does not mean that you aren't still using the same damage roll for all the targets. The 'damage roll' is not the same thing as 'the damage roll plus all the bonuses'.
If the damage roll was identical to the numbers from the dice plus all bonuses, you'd have infinite damage. Seriously--if we define 'Damage Roll' as 'what the dice say plus all the bonuses, including the Curse feature', then here would be the result:
Roll the dice. This is currently the Damage Roll.
Curse says "add this number to the damage roll". So you add the Curse bonus.
If we say that this total is now the 'Damage Roll', then...
We add the Curse bonus again, because that feature says to add it to the Damage Roll. And what we got after step 2 is the Damage Roll.
But then this is the new 'Damage Roll'. So...
We add the Curse bonus again, because we are supposed to add that to the Damage Roll.
And etc.
'Damage Roll' and the damage from the Hexblade Curse are separate things.
Your later point is not actually true because a damage roll is actually a defined thing, and bonuses from modifiers and special abilities are actually codified as being a part of the roll itself, not a new roll. And while I agree that the rest of your logic is sound, there is nothing in the rules saying that a damage roll is unique to the targets, in fact there is precedent stating that there is exactly one damage roll for spells that can hit multiple targets in the rules outwardly stating that you apply one damage roll to all targets, not count it as an independent roll but use the same one. Because I am looking at this only in the framework of the rules (trying to make an argument for clarification or an errata basically) the wording of the rules on damage rolls and for the first part of Hexblade's Curse means that you are in fact adding the bonus to the original roll, then applying it. Whether this is intended or not is moot, as I am specifically looking to see if there is RAW that dismantles this and was asking for that, nothing more.
Magic Missile is basically a known problem spell based on things Crawford has said, including this reference here https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/06/28/scorching-ray-dd-errata/ which discusses Elemental Affinity and how you can add your CHA bonus to each missile as well because it is treated like Fireball and other AoE spells (link says scorching ray because it was being compared to scorching ray) which is an odd argument since MM is force damage but still, I think it was used solely to make a point since the bonus gets added to each dart because it is a single instance of rolling. This sets further precedence that the rules on MM being a single roll are intended, and that a damage roll is a singular thing applied equally to multiple targets as referenced in the damage rolls rule under combat are intended.
Either way, it is cheesy for low level encounters and levels out to just being strong past the earlier levels...it really isn't something game breaking though and thought it'd be interesting looking at it in the most pedantic way by interpreting it only by RAW and seeing if there are other written rules that break things apart.
Ok. Going to play a little bit of rules Frankenstein to describe the order of events using only rule text from: magic missile, Hexblade's curse, and Damage rolls. Here we go.
Each weapon, spell, and harmful monster ability specifies the damage it deals. You create three glowing darts of magical force. Each dart hits a creature of your choice that you can see within range. A dart deals 1d4 + 1 force damage to its target. You gain a bonus to damage rolls against the cursed target. The bonus equals your proficiency bonus. The darts all strike simultaneously. You roll the damage die or dice, add any modifiers, and apply the damage to your target.
Didn't need the "more than one target" rule, because the spell specifies that the darts deal the damage and each dart has 1 target.
To summarize: Following the description of the spell trumps following the "more than one target" rule. Each dart rolls its damage to deal to its target individually, and adds modifiers (like the curse) individually (so curse damage only adds to curse target). Then the damage of multiple darts with one target is totaled up and dealt as a sum.
The ruling is alive, and it is RAW. Any questions?
Magic Missile follows the rules for spells that can target multiple creatures, because the darts are simultaneous and do not require separate attack rolls...it is effectively like Fireball...if it only hits one target, it is still a spell that can target multiple creatures, and it does damage to all targets simultaneously...it is not like Eldritch Blast or Scorching Ray though, which have attacks which do not hit simultaneously. What I am stating has been clarified by Crawford as being how the spell is written and how it operates under RAW.
Whenever you make a damage roll against a cursed target, it takes an additional amount of damage equal to your proficiency modifier.
I'm actually not seeing any difference that this would make over the current reading in regards to MM or Fireball. It's still telling me the same thing, which tells me that your reading would still apply the damage to the MM damage roll and then propagate to each of its targets.
The current text adds the damage to the damage roll, which would then apply to all targets hit. The proposed change inflicts the damage directly to the creature cursed without affecting other targets.
Current text might mean that. What is the definition of "damage rolls *against* the cursed target"? Is that a damage roll for which the cursed target is *the* target, or is it a damage roll where the cursed target is one of the chosen targets, or does it also cover any damage role for an area damage effect which might affect the cursed target (and what happens if that cursed target passes a save and avoids any damage, is the damage roll still increased), or is it any damage roll which will harm the cursed target's interests? These are non-defined terms in the PHB or DMG so any appeal to a definitive RAW is difficult.
If that is the case, then I would say the ability needs clarification due to ambiguity...I am 100% fine ruling at my table that the combo I presented won't work because I don't want it to work...but I'd rather the rules be clearer for new entrants to the hobby and DMs who try to adhere to RAW the best they can as to not upset player expectations. That was part of the reason for the discussion.
Area effect roll with a save would have the same roll and each creature would have a save opportunity to take half or no damage depending on the spell. Between saves, resistances, and vulnerabilities, there are enough instances of specific trumping general that I'm having a hard time understanding the disconnect.
Further, in one of the Sage Advice it says Crawford says it depends on the wording whether +damage affects all bolts or not. Hexblade curse says, "You gain a bonus to damage rolls against the cursed target. The bonus equals your proficiency bonus." If the damage is only calculated against 1 target and you are targeting more than 1 target, what in any of it says that the player gets to determine which target determines the damage? The DM is the rules interpreter and your reading gives the DM just as much incentive to abuse it going the other direction. But if we factor in that the bonus is added to the damage roll specifically made against the cursed creature, it doesn't matter how many other targets are hit, the modifier will be applied to the cursed creature. Or are you wanting to add +2 damage to each creature affected by fireball too?
I'm a forever DM, and try to adhere to RAW as much as I can...right now I would have no problem with Fireball or other AoE spells being affected since that's what the rules on the matter say...I do have a problem with Magic Missile dealing 12 points of damage minimum at level 1 though, but agree with Crawford that Magic Missile is a single damage roll...but ruling yes on other AoE spells and no for Magic Missile breaks rules consistency which I personally hate to do...hence desiring a RAW ruling that removes the problem so that I don't have to violate RAW for some people new to 5e I will start running a game for soon.
Continuing to advocate on behalf of Azmodeus here...
With all due respect and admiration, the rule that Crawford is overlooking in this case is the notion that specific overrides general. The text as it's written specifies darts individually and even includes the note that the damage roll is applied to "its target". The darts may strike simultaneously, but that's irrelevant because they aren't the same effect. They may come from the same spell, sure, but they are separate instances of an effect template generated by the spell. The spell isn't doing any damage at all; the individual darts it created do the damage.
If it was one dart that flew around and struck all the targets, then the simultaneous-damage rule would naturally follow, albeit rather absurdly.
Interpreting it as a single damage roll would also make more sense were it written, "Three creatures of your choice within range are struck by darts of force and take 1d4+1 force damage."
All of our headache over this is coming from the word "simultaneously"; which I submit is a huge red herring. It doesn't even make sense for them to hit simultaneously. What if one target is 10 ft away and the other is at 120 ft? Quantum mechanics?!
Also, if all darts hit the same target, page 196 doesn't apply; wrap your head around that for a minute.
Continuing to advocate on behalf of Azmodeus here...
With all due respect and admiration, the rule that Crawford is overlooking in this case is the notion that specific overrides general. The text as it's written specifies darts individually and even includes the note that the damage roll is applied to "its target". The darts may strike simultaneously, but that's irrelevant because they aren't the same effect. They may come from the same spell, sure, but they are separate instances of an effect template generated by the spell. The spell isn't doing any damage at all; the individual darts it created do the damage.
If it was one dart that flew around and struck all the targets, then the simultaneous-damage rule would naturally follow, albeit rather absurdly.
Interpreting it as a single damage roll would also make more sense were it written, "Three creatures of your choice within range are struck by darts of force and take 1d4+1 force damage."
All of our headache over this is coming from the word "simultaneously"; which I submit is a huge red herring. It doesn't even make sense for them to hit simultaneously. What if one target is 10 ft away and the other is at 120 ft? Quantum mechanics?!
Also, if all darts hit the same target, page 196 doesn't apply; wrap your head around that for a minute.
Ugh.
Page 196 does apply, because it tells you that the spell tells you what damage die to roll and tells you that if it affects multiple targets you roll once for all targets. Basically the second part is clarifying that you don't need to roll if it hits multiple targets, while the first part of the rule makes that implied. Magic Missile has nothing telling you to roll for each dart, so you roll once. Something like Scorching Ray is different though, because it specifically follows the rules on making an attack and per resolving the attack, you roll for damage. This means that per RAW things like Toll the Dead, if twinned, would use a single damage roll to determine the damage dealt.
So in reality the whole thing is quite simple: If it requires a spell attack and allows multiple attacks or targets, you roll damage for each per the rules on making an attack. If it doesn't require a spell attack, it is a single damage roll regardless of the number of targets. That is how it is written, is simple, and not hard to remember...it only leads to weird situations because people don't think of spells in those terms and complicate it by thinking that selectable targets means individual rolls, when the reality is that you only roll when you use a spell or make an attack...a spell that requires an attack follows the rules for making an attack, while other spells do not.
But if we factor in that the bonus is added to the damage roll specifically made against the cursed creature, it doesn't matter how many other targets are hit, the modifier will be applied to the cursed creature. Or are you wanting to add +2 damage to each creature affected by fireball too?
That's the problem. The modifier is not applied to the cursed creature, but to the damage roll. And since there is only one damage roll, then every target takes more damage, since they all use the same damage roll. Per those rules, Fireball would also add the +2 damage to the roll, and therefore every target would take extra damage.
I'm not saying that was the intention, nor am I saying I would insist on it being run that way in games I play, but that's how it is written. (It might have been the intention, too... a sort of "jinx" curse, where others near the target are also somewhat affected by the curse.)
There are two things:
The damage roll
The total damage after applying the Curse to the damage roll.
The fact that you apply the Curse damage to the damage roll indicates that the Curse damage is not part of the damage roll :) A rule saying "Add A to B" clearly indicates that A is not part of B. Otherwise, you could not add A to B. So in this case, we apply the same Damage Roll to all MM targets, but then add the Curse bonus to the Damage Roll where it applies, which is just the Curse target.
So you have a spell that applies one damage roll to multiple targets. Then you have a feature that adds damage to the damage roll versus one of the targets. That you are supposed to add something to the damage roll against one target does not mean that you aren't still using the same damage roll for all the targets. The 'damage roll' is not the same thing as 'the damage roll plus all the bonuses'.
If the damage roll was identical to the numbers from the dice plus all bonuses, you'd have infinite damage. Seriously--if we define 'Damage Roll' as 'what the dice say plus all the bonuses, including the Curse feature', then here would be the result:
Roll the dice. This is currently the Damage Roll.
Curse says "add this number to the damage roll". So you add the Curse bonus.
If we say that this total is now the 'Damage Roll', then...
We add the Curse bonus again, because that feature says to add it to the Damage Roll. And what we got after step 2 is the Damage Roll.
But then this is the new 'Damage Roll'. So...
We add the Curse bonus again, because we are supposed to add that to the Damage Roll.
And etc.
'Damage Roll' and the damage from the Hexblade Curse are separate things.
I'll assume you're not being disingenuous and answer honestly. There's another meaning to "add", which is the one that's being used here, and it's related to "accumulate". It's not even a weird, archaic, or obscure use, either. For example: "Add some carrots to the soup. Now add potatoes to the soup. Now add seared beef cubes to the soup. Finally, I ask you, what makes up the soup?" Obviously, what was in it before, plus carrots, potatoes, and beef. You "added" three things to a fourth thing, and the fourth thing is now what it was before plus the three things. You add a damage bonus to the roll, and now the roll is what it was before plus the damage bonus.
Moreover, there is no need to continuously add a value to the total, infinitely. If the instructions for making a soup say "add carrots to the soup", would you add infinite carrots, because once you add them, that's "soup", and you were told to add carrots to the soup? No, you already added carrots to the soup, now the soup includes carrots; carrots were added to the soup, and now form part of the soup, so that step's done. Similarly, you're asked to add a specific bonus to the roll. You add it, now it's added, and is part of the roll. Why would you need to add it again? You did that step already, you performed that action, now the roll includes that specific bonus.
\All of our headache over this is coming from the word "simultaneously"; which I submit is a huge red herring. It doesn't even make sense for them to hit simultaneously. What if one target is 10 ft away and the other is at 120 ft? Quantum mechanics?!\
No, not quantum mechanics, magic. What's so weird about a magical effect originating from one point and hitting two separate points, at wildly different distances from the origin, simultaneously? It's magic. If it followed all the rules of physics, it wouldn't be magic.
\All of our headache over this is coming from the word "simultaneously"; which I submit is a huge red herring. It doesn't even make sense for them to hit simultaneously. What if one target is 10 ft away and the other is at 120 ft? Quantum mechanics?!\
No, not quantum mechanics, magic. What's so weird about a magical effect originating from one point and hitting two separate points, at wildly different distances from the origin, simultaneously? It's magic. If it followed all the rules of physics, it wouldn't be magic.
It's weird because it's unintuitive, unimaginative, and impossible to visualize without silly leaps of logic such as "perhaps the bolts travel at different speeds" or "maybe they are conjured at the exact same distance from their respective targets".
The problem is that the spell text gives no such clarification, is confusing when combined with pg. 196, and leaves itself open to wildly different interpretations.
We can call it "magic" and brush it aside, sure, but I'd rather acknowledge the imperfection that has led to this fascinating debate on the rules.
But if we factor in that the bonus is added to the damage roll specifically made against the cursed creature, it doesn't matter how many other targets are hit, the modifier will be applied to the cursed creature. Or are you wanting to add +2 damage to each creature affected by fireball too?
That's the problem. The modifier is not applied to the cursed creature, but to the damage roll. And since there is only one damage roll, then every target takes more damage, since they all use the same damage roll. Per those rules, Fireball would also add the +2 damage to the roll, and therefore every target would take extra damage.
I'm not saying that was the intention, nor am I saying I would insist on it being run that way in games I play, but that's how it is written. (It might have been the intention, too... a sort of "jinx" curse, where others near the target are also somewhat affected by the curse.)
OK. Let's say that you have a 3 duergar fighters and an azer. They are chasing the party down a 20 ft wide hallway two abreast and are no more than 20 ft apart front to back. A sorcerer 5/ warlock 1 has placed the hexblade's curse on one of the fighters prior to the party retreating down the hallway. Seeing the precarious position of the pursuers, said sorcerer/warlock turns and casts an empowered fireball centered on the pursuers. One of the non-cursed fighters successfully saves, but the other three fail their saves. What is the damage assigned to each pursuer if the sorcerer/warlock has a charisma of 20? Does it change any if the azer was the cursed one instead?
OK. Let's say that you have a 3 duergar fighters and an azer. They are chasing the party down a 20 ft wide hallway two abreast and are no more than 20 ft apart front to back. A sorcerer 5/ warlock 1 has placed the hexblade's curse on one of the fighters prior to the party retreating down the hallway. Seeing the precarious position of the pursuers, said sorcerer/warlock turns and casts an empowered fireball centered on the pursuers. One of the non-cursed fighters successfully saves, but the other three fail their saves. What is the damage assigned to each pursuer if the sorcerer/warlock has a charisma of 20?
I'll take a stab at this, I guess. For quick reference:
Charisma of 20 would give a casting modifier of +5
Hexblade's Curse applies a bonus to damage rolls equal to your proficiency modifier -- in this case, Sorc5/Lock1 is character level 6, so +3 bonus to damage results
Fireball -- the spell being Empowered (Sorc Metamagic) does not have an effect for our purpose since we're not actually rolling the dice
Assuming it's cast at it's base of 3rd level, since it was not specified
On a failed save, a target takes 8d6+5 Fire damage
On a successful saving throw, a target takes half the rolled result
Assume all 3 [Tooltip Not Found] and the Azer are within the 20 foot area, and as such are targeted by the spell
1 of the [Tooltip Not Found] has previously been tagged with Hexblade's Curse, still active on that creature
A different Duergar succeeds the saving throw (surprising that it's only 1, since they have Advantage vs magic...)
So, starting the chain of events. Sorcerer declares the Fireball, DM rolls Saving Throws for the 4 creatures. One of the Duergars succeeds, and so will take half damage. The other 2, including the one tagged with Hexblade's Curse, fail the save, and so will take the full hit. The Sorcerer rolls their 8d6, tallies the total, and adds their +5 from their spellcasting modifier. And here's where we have the focal point of the discussion.
The first option of how to proceed from here is to take this total, and copy it out to each individual creature affected by the spell. In this case there are 4 targets, so we process the remainder of the spell on a per-creature basis, because all the effects applied to the Sorcerer and the spell itself have been resolved, leaving only applying the damage to the target creatures and any modifiers there-in. The other option is that we do not split the calculations, because the way the rules are written you still handle the resulting value from the damage roll as a single thing, even though you have 4 targets you are working with. In the first case, Hexblade's Curse affects only the creature that it is applied to. In the second, Hexblade's Curse would affect all creatures affected by the Fireball spell.
First version -- separate calculations
With the effects of the spell itself determined, we move to assigning damage, and as such branch our calculation. Since the damage type of the spell is Fire, and the Azer is immune to Fire damage, we can go ahead and throw that one away -- the Azer takes 0 damage, due to it's immunity to Fire damage. Next, we move to the Duergar that succeeded it's saving throw. Suceeding the Saving Throw results in this Duergar taking half of the result of the 8d6+5 roll in Fire Damage. Of the remaining 2 Duergar, both failed their Saving Throws, and take full damage form the Fireball, but the other is afflicted by Hexblade's Curse. The Duergar without the curse takes the result of the 8d6+5 Fire Damage. The Duergar afflicted by Hexblade's Curse would, then, would also add the Proficiency Modifier of +3 to the damage result. So the Duergar afflicted with Hexblade's Curse would take 8d6+8 Fire damage. And that concludes the evaluation of the spell.
Second version -- unified calculation
Since there is only the one damage, roll, we must apply Hexblade's Curse to it due to the way Hexblade's Curse is worded. So we get 8d6+5+3 or 8d6+8 Fire Damage dealt to all targets. Again, we can throw out the Azer's damage, because it is immune to Fire Damage. The Duergar that suceeded the Saving Throw would take half the result of 8d6+8 in Fire Damage. The remaining 2 Duergar would take equal damage, having failed their save, of 8d6+8 Fire Damage.
And the second part about the azer being the target of the hexblades curse? Admittedly, that was edited in probably just after you started the response considering the length.
The rules actually do define what a damage roll is...it is under combat just FYI. That's why the whole thing isn't just an ambiguous mess, but rather more clearly defined.
Yeah, I know about that section. That is the section that I have been talking about this whole time. What I'm saying is that that section does not say what you are saying it says. It says "You roll the damage die or dice, add any modifiers, and apply the damage to your target." Then later it says "If a spell or other effect deals damage to more than one target at the same time, roll the damage once for all of them." And I am pointing out that it only says to *roll* once for damage - it does not then say that the exact same damage modifiers apply in regards to every single target. It doesn't say the opposite either. Thus it is ambiguous on that point.
Taken as a whole, the rules clearly allow for different targets of the same effect to take different amounts of damage from that effect - even though dice were only rolled once: one target has vulnerability, one target passed its save, one target has the Heavy Armor Master feat, one target is coated in flammable oil, and so on. I suggest that the hexblade curse is just one more damage modifier against only that target, and not any other targets which happen to be being damaged by that same roll of dice.
The case for individual rolls per missile can be made by pointing out that the spell says "A dart deals 1d4 + 1 force damage". The spell creates several instances of an effect template, not one single effect covering an area. The rules for multi-target spells show only examples of areas of effect, not single instances of effect (e.g. scorching ray, which is also debatable depending on how burdensome one wants to make the issue).
If the text read "All darts deals 1d4 + 1 force damage", then it would make sense to roll once. Because it creates individual darts and then states the rules that those darts each follow individually, it follows that regardless of the timing of impact there is a new roll for each dart.
It's not perfect, but that's how I'd rule it.
The current text adds the damage to the damage roll, which would then apply to all targets hit. The proposed change inflicts the damage directly to the creature cursed without affecting other targets.
Ok. Going to play a little bit of rules Frankenstein to describe the order of events using only rule text from: magic missile, Hexblade's curse, and Damage rolls. Here we go.
Didn't need the "more than one target" rule, because the spell specifies that the darts deal the damage and each dart has 1 target.
To summarize: Following the description of the spell trumps following the "more than one target" rule. Each dart rolls its damage to deal to its target individually, and adds modifiers (like the curse) individually (so curse damage only adds to curse target). Then the damage of multiple darts with one target is totaled up and dealt as a sum.
The ruling is alive, and it is RAW. Any questions?
Current text might mean that. What is the definition of "damage rolls *against* the cursed target"? Is that a damage roll for which the cursed target is *the* target, or is it a damage roll where the cursed target is one of the chosen targets, or does it also cover any damage role for an area damage effect which might affect the cursed target (and what happens if that cursed target passes a save and avoids any damage, is the damage roll still increased), or is it any damage roll which will harm the cursed target's interests? These are non-defined terms in the PHB or DMG so any appeal to a definitive RAW is difficult.
Area effect roll with a save would have the same roll and each creature would have a save opportunity to take half or no damage depending on the spell. Between saves, resistances, and vulnerabilities, there are enough instances of specific trumping general that I'm having a hard time understanding the disconnect.
Further, in one of the Sage Advice it says Crawford says it depends on the wording whether +damage affects all bolts or not. Hexblade curse says, "You gain a bonus to damage rolls against the cursed target. The bonus equals your proficiency bonus." If the damage is only calculated against 1 target and you are targeting more than 1 target, what in any of it says that the player gets to determine which target determines the damage? The DM is the rules interpreter and your reading gives the DM just as much incentive to abuse it going the other direction. But if we factor in that the bonus is added to the damage roll specifically made against the cursed creature, it doesn't matter how many other targets are hit, the modifier will be applied to the cursed creature. Or are you wanting to add +2 damage to each creature affected by fireball too?
That's the problem. The modifier is not applied to the cursed creature, but to the damage roll. And since there is only one damage roll, then every target takes more damage, since they all use the same damage roll. Per those rules, Fireball would also add the +2 damage to the roll, and therefore every target would take extra damage.
I'm not saying that was the intention, nor am I saying I would insist on it being run that way in games I play, but that's how it is written. (It might have been the intention, too... a sort of "jinx" curse, where others near the target are also somewhat affected by the curse.)
There are two things:
The fact that you apply the Curse damage to the damage roll indicates that the Curse damage is not part of the damage roll :) A rule saying "Add A to B" clearly indicates that A is not part of B. Otherwise, you could not add A to B. So in this case, we apply the same Damage Roll to all MM targets, but then add the Curse bonus to the Damage Roll where it applies, which is just the Curse target.
So you have a spell that applies one damage roll to multiple targets. Then you have a feature that adds damage to the damage roll versus one of the targets. That you are supposed to add something to the damage roll against one target does not mean that you aren't still using the same damage roll for all the targets. The 'damage roll' is not the same thing as 'the damage roll plus all the bonuses'.
If the damage roll was identical to the numbers from the dice plus all bonuses, you'd have infinite damage. Seriously--if we define 'Damage Roll' as 'what the dice say plus all the bonuses, including the Curse feature', then here would be the result:
'Damage Roll' and the damage from the Hexblade Curse are separate things.
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
Your later point is not actually true because a damage roll is actually a defined thing, and bonuses from modifiers and special abilities are actually codified as being a part of the roll itself, not a new roll. And while I agree that the rest of your logic is sound, there is nothing in the rules saying that a damage roll is unique to the targets, in fact there is precedent stating that there is exactly one damage roll for spells that can hit multiple targets in the rules outwardly stating that you apply one damage roll to all targets, not count it as an independent roll but use the same one. Because I am looking at this only in the framework of the rules (trying to make an argument for clarification or an errata basically) the wording of the rules on damage rolls and for the first part of Hexblade's Curse means that you are in fact adding the bonus to the original roll, then applying it. Whether this is intended or not is moot, as I am specifically looking to see if there is RAW that dismantles this and was asking for that, nothing more.
Magic Missile is basically a known problem spell based on things Crawford has said, including this reference here https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/06/28/scorching-ray-dd-errata/ which discusses Elemental Affinity and how you can add your CHA bonus to each missile as well because it is treated like Fireball and other AoE spells (link says scorching ray because it was being compared to scorching ray) which is an odd argument since MM is force damage but still, I think it was used solely to make a point since the bonus gets added to each dart because it is a single instance of rolling. This sets further precedence that the rules on MM being a single roll are intended, and that a damage roll is a singular thing applied equally to multiple targets as referenced in the damage rolls rule under combat are intended.
Either way, it is cheesy for low level encounters and levels out to just being strong past the earlier levels...it really isn't something game breaking though and thought it'd be interesting looking at it in the most pedantic way by interpreting it only by RAW and seeing if there are other written rules that break things apart.
Magic Missile follows the rules for spells that can target multiple creatures, because the darts are simultaneous and do not require separate attack rolls...it is effectively like Fireball...if it only hits one target, it is still a spell that can target multiple creatures, and it does damage to all targets simultaneously...it is not like Eldritch Blast or Scorching Ray though, which have attacks which do not hit simultaneously. What I am stating has been clarified by Crawford as being how the spell is written and how it operates under RAW.
If that is the case, then I would say the ability needs clarification due to ambiguity...I am 100% fine ruling at my table that the combo I presented won't work because I don't want it to work...but I'd rather the rules be clearer for new entrants to the hobby and DMs who try to adhere to RAW the best they can as to not upset player expectations. That was part of the reason for the discussion.
I'm a forever DM, and try to adhere to RAW as much as I can...right now I would have no problem with Fireball or other AoE spells being affected since that's what the rules on the matter say...I do have a problem with Magic Missile dealing 12 points of damage minimum at level 1 though, but agree with Crawford that Magic Missile is a single damage roll...but ruling yes on other AoE spells and no for Magic Missile breaks rules consistency which I personally hate to do...hence desiring a RAW ruling that removes the problem so that I don't have to violate RAW for some people new to 5e I will start running a game for soon.
Continuing to advocate on behalf of Azmodeus here...
With all due respect and admiration, the rule that Crawford is overlooking in this case is the notion that specific overrides general. The text as it's written specifies darts individually and even includes the note that the damage roll is applied to "its target". The darts may strike simultaneously, but that's irrelevant because they aren't the same effect. They may come from the same spell, sure, but they are separate instances of an effect template generated by the spell. The spell isn't doing any damage at all; the individual darts it created do the damage.
If it was one dart that flew around and struck all the targets, then the simultaneous-damage rule would naturally follow, albeit rather absurdly.
Interpreting it as a single damage roll would also make more sense were it written, "Three creatures of your choice within range are struck by darts of force and take 1d4+1 force damage."
All of our headache over this is coming from the word "simultaneously"; which I submit is a huge red herring. It doesn't even make sense for them to hit simultaneously. What if one target is 10 ft away and the other is at 120 ft? Quantum mechanics?!
Also, if all darts hit the same target, page 196 doesn't apply; wrap your head around that for a minute.
Ugh.
Page 196 does apply, because it tells you that the spell tells you what damage die to roll and tells you that if it affects multiple targets you roll once for all targets. Basically the second part is clarifying that you don't need to roll if it hits multiple targets, while the first part of the rule makes that implied. Magic Missile has nothing telling you to roll for each dart, so you roll once. Something like Scorching Ray is different though, because it specifically follows the rules on making an attack and per resolving the attack, you roll for damage. This means that per RAW things like Toll the Dead, if twinned, would use a single damage roll to determine the damage dealt.
So in reality the whole thing is quite simple: If it requires a spell attack and allows multiple attacks or targets, you roll damage for each per the rules on making an attack. If it doesn't require a spell attack, it is a single damage roll regardless of the number of targets. That is how it is written, is simple, and not hard to remember...it only leads to weird situations because people don't think of spells in those terms and complicate it by thinking that selectable targets means individual rolls, when the reality is that you only roll when you use a spell or make an attack...a spell that requires an attack follows the rules for making an attack, while other spells do not.
I'll assume you're not being disingenuous and answer honestly. There's another meaning to "add", which is the one that's being used here, and it's related to "accumulate". It's not even a weird, archaic, or obscure use, either. For example: "Add some carrots to the soup. Now add potatoes to the soup. Now add seared beef cubes to the soup. Finally, I ask you, what makes up the soup?" Obviously, what was in it before, plus carrots, potatoes, and beef. You "added" three things to a fourth thing, and the fourth thing is now what it was before plus the three things. You add a damage bonus to the roll, and now the roll is what it was before plus the damage bonus.
Moreover, there is no need to continuously add a value to the total, infinitely. If the instructions for making a soup say "add carrots to the soup", would you add infinite carrots, because once you add them, that's "soup", and you were told to add carrots to the soup? No, you already added carrots to the soup, now the soup includes carrots; carrots were added to the soup, and now form part of the soup, so that step's done. Similarly, you're asked to add a specific bonus to the roll. You add it, now it's added, and is part of the roll. Why would you need to add it again? You did that step already, you performed that action, now the roll includes that specific bonus.
No, not quantum mechanics, magic. What's so weird about a magical effect originating from one point and hitting two separate points, at wildly different distances from the origin, simultaneously? It's magic. If it followed all the rules of physics, it wouldn't be magic.
It's weird because it's unintuitive, unimaginative, and impossible to visualize without silly leaps of logic such as "perhaps the bolts travel at different speeds" or "maybe they are conjured at the exact same distance from their respective targets".
The problem is that the spell text gives no such clarification, is confusing when combined with pg. 196, and leaves itself open to wildly different interpretations.
We can call it "magic" and brush it aside, sure, but I'd rather acknowledge the imperfection that has led to this fascinating debate on the rules.
OK. Let's say that you have a 3 duergar fighters and an azer. They are chasing the party down a 20 ft wide hallway two abreast and are no more than 20 ft apart front to back. A sorcerer 5/ warlock 1 has placed the hexblade's curse on one of the fighters prior to the party retreating down the hallway. Seeing the precarious position of the pursuers, said sorcerer/warlock turns and casts an empowered fireball centered on the pursuers. One of the non-cursed fighters successfully saves, but the other three fail their saves. What is the damage assigned to each pursuer if the sorcerer/warlock has a charisma of 20? Does it change any if the azer was the cursed one instead?
I'll take a stab at this, I guess. For quick reference:
So, starting the chain of events. Sorcerer declares the Fireball, DM rolls Saving Throws for the 4 creatures. One of the Duergars succeeds, and so will take half damage. The other 2, including the one tagged with Hexblade's Curse, fail the save, and so will take the full hit. The Sorcerer rolls their 8d6, tallies the total, and adds their +5 from their spellcasting modifier. And here's where we have the focal point of the discussion.
The first option of how to proceed from here is to take this total, and copy it out to each individual creature affected by the spell. In this case there are 4 targets, so we process the remainder of the spell on a per-creature basis, because all the effects applied to the Sorcerer and the spell itself have been resolved, leaving only applying the damage to the target creatures and any modifiers there-in. The other option is that we do not split the calculations, because the way the rules are written you still handle the resulting value from the damage roll as a single thing, even though you have 4 targets you are working with. In the first case, Hexblade's Curse affects only the creature that it is applied to. In the second, Hexblade's Curse would affect all creatures affected by the Fireball spell.
First version -- separate calculations
With the effects of the spell itself determined, we move to assigning damage, and as such branch our calculation. Since the damage type of the spell is Fire, and the Azer is immune to Fire damage, we can go ahead and throw that one away -- the Azer takes 0 damage, due to it's immunity to Fire damage. Next, we move to the Duergar that succeeded it's saving throw. Suceeding the Saving Throw results in this Duergar taking half of the result of the 8d6+5 roll in Fire Damage. Of the remaining 2 Duergar, both failed their Saving Throws, and take full damage form the Fireball, but the other is afflicted by Hexblade's Curse. The Duergar without the curse takes the result of the 8d6+5 Fire Damage. The Duergar afflicted by Hexblade's Curse would, then, would also add the Proficiency Modifier of +3 to the damage result. So the Duergar afflicted with Hexblade's Curse would take 8d6+8 Fire damage. And that concludes the evaluation of the spell.
Second version -- unified calculation
Since there is only the one damage, roll, we must apply Hexblade's Curse to it due to the way Hexblade's Curse is worded. So we get 8d6+5+3 or 8d6+8 Fire Damage dealt to all targets. Again, we can throw out the Azer's damage, because it is immune to Fire Damage. The Duergar that suceeded the Saving Throw would take half the result of 8d6+8 in Fire Damage. The remaining 2 Duergar would take equal damage, having failed their save, of 8d6+8 Fire Damage.
And the second part about the azer being the target of the hexblades curse? Admittedly, that was edited in probably just after you started the response considering the length.