The [monster[Azer[/monster] should still take no damage, because of it's immunity to Fire Damage. In the first scenario, it would have no affect on any other monster. In the second scenario, it would still affect all 4 Monsters, because the roll is the thing being modified.
Ultimately, the conclusion we can reach here is that either Hexblade's Curse is poorly worded and leads to a lot of confusion over where you apply it, or the section of the rules regarding the order of operations for applying multiple spell modifiers is inadequately worded to address the variety of modifiers that exist in the game and how the formula interacts with them.
The first scenario is most likely what is intended, and frankly far more logical since Hexblade's Curse is attached to a specific creature, but without further clarification both are equally valid and the DM basically gets to decide.
The Azer should still take no damage, because of it's immunity to Fire Damage. In the first scenario, it would have no affect on any other monster. In the second scenario, it would still affect all 4 Monsters, because the roll is the thing being modified.
Ultimately, the conclusion we can reach here is that either Hexblade's Curse is poorly worded and leads to a lot of confusion over where you apply it, or the section of the rules regarding the order of operations for applying multiple spell modifiers is inadequately worded to address the variety of modifiers that exist in the game and how the formula interacts with them.
The first scenario is most likely what is intended, and frankly far more logical since Hexblade's Curse is attached to a specific creature, but without further clarification both are equally valid and the DM basically gets to decide.
From Xanathar's Guide to Everything, page 5, Resistance and Vulnerability: Here's the order that you apply modifiers to damage: (1) any relevant damage immunity, (2) any addition or subtraction to the damage, (3) one relevant damage resistance, and (4) one relevant damage vulnerability. The instance with the azer as the target would therefore be roll 8d6, apply fire damage immunity rendering the 8d6 null, add the proficiency bonus damage from hexblade's curse (also fire damage since hexblade's curse doesn't specify it's type), and there are no relevant resistances or vulnerabilities because the damage rendered null through the immunity. This is what I'm seeing when we from the reading that is being made. It's also absurd.
hexblade 1/sorcerer 1 casts magic missile at 3 separate targets including one that was previously cursed with hexblade's curse.
Target 1 [ ] = damage roll + relevant modifier = damage ==>5+0=5==>applied to creature
Target 2 [1d4+1 = 4+1=5] = damage roll + relevant modifier = damage ==>5+0=5==>applied to creature
Target 3 (hexblade's curse) [ ] = damage roll + relevant modifier = damage ==>5+2=7==>applied to creature
One damage roll (5). One creature cursed (target 3). Relevant modifier added (non universal, added to the damage roll). Final damage calculated.
Would it have been better had the wording said, "You gain a bonus to damage caused by a damage roll against the cursed target. The bonus equals your proficiency bonus." To differentiate it from flat damage options? Sure. But identifying that a proficiency bonus being added to a damage roll when a proficiency bonus is typically identified with an attack roll or a DC save is not groundbreaking (even if it would have done nothing in that instance without saying something along the line of double the proficiency bonus, or whatever the wording is for Expertise to work). Otherwise, I'm not seeing how the absurd scenario with the azer that I identified earlier isn't falling under the same ruling, except by saying that the immunity only applies to one creature. Which would be absurd when Hexblade's curse reads, " Starting at 1st level, you gain the ability to place a baleful curse on someone. As a bonus action, choose one creature you can see within 30 feet of you..." and yet you would be applying the curse to everyone targeted by an AoE.
It all comes back to the part where Hexblade's Curse specifies that it modifies the damage roll. It interacts very poorly and very strangely with multi-target and AoE effects. And frankly, I see no reason for it to even do that. It should be it's own separate effect. "When you deal damage, from any source, to the creature afflicted with Hexblade's Curse, it additionally takes your proficiency bonus in damage." Flavor it with either a specific damage type, or a short list of type options to pick from, and call it a day. That would render all this nonsense about multi-target and AoE spells irrelevant.
It's one of those linguistics things where everybody knows what's actually meant, but you can twist it several ways by playing semantics to get the outcome you want out of it. And it wreaks of lawyer-speak. Though, thematically that does make some sense, since we're talking about the Warlock, making eldritch pacts with arcane beings....
It all comes back to the part where Hexblade's Curse specifies that it modifies the damage roll. It interacts very poorly and very strangely with multi-target and AoE effects. And frankly, I see no reason for it to even do that. It should be it's own separate effect. "When you deal damage, from any source, to the creature afflicted with Hexblade's Curse, it additionally takes your proficiency bonus in damage." Flavor it with either a specific damage type, or a short list of type options to pick from, and call it a day. That would render all this nonsense about multi-target and AoE spells irrelevant.
It's one of those linguistics things where everybody knows what's actually meant, but you can twist it several ways by playing semantics to get the outcome you want out of it. And it wreaks of lawyer-speak. Though, thematically that does make some sense, since we're talking about the Warlock, making eldritch pacts with arcane beings....
Exactly, but the thing here is we are assuming it works one way...we really don't know, just like many were unaware that Magic Missile is a single roll...there are just some rules that are overly wordy.
As far as the curse goes, if it is intended for it to only affect the creature under the curse, it is quite easy to just word it to clarify that...hence why part of me wonders if the wording was intentional and concise, since most of the edge cases wouldn't result in a huge damage bonus...it is just Magic Missile breaking things because it is the only spell that I can think of that doesn't have each bolt make you roll, so it follows the other rules where you just roll the damage die stated and that's that. That said if the intent was to work how most assume (myself included, I just prefer to side with RAW) than it really needs to be clarified.
That all said, it is pretty clear that a damage roll is a damage roll...multiple targets aren't affected by different rolls, because there is only 1, and using that as the basis to rule against what I described is basically making up rules because no one (myself included) wants to justify such a thing being possible.
There's another problem with how Hexblade's Curse is worded... that extra damage, what's its type? If the Warlock's attacking with a regular weapon, or a spell that only does one damage type, then it seems obvious the extra damage should be of that type... but what if the Warlock's attacking with a Flame Tongue weapon? Is the extra damage slashing/piercing, or fire?
There's another problem with how Hexblade's Curse is worded... that extra damage, what's its type? If the Warlock's attacking with a regular weapon, or a spell that only does one damage type, then it seems obvious the extra damage should be of that type... but what if the Warlock's attacking with a Flame Tongue weapon? Is the extra damage slashing/piercing, or fire?
Hexblade's curse doesn't specify, so it's exactly what causes the damage. In the case of Flame Tongue, I guess that would be slashing/piercing fire damage. Otherwise it would say so.
I know I've made a lot of comments, but I am still surprised that this is being discussed as in depth as it is, so thanks for that because I do find this to be an interesting thing to discuss.
EDIT: And yeah, Hexblade's curse is weird for not stating the damage type, similar to sneak attack...which also just does the damage type of the weapon but doesn't address what happens if the weapon deals elemental damage as well.
Aa far as I'm concerned, hexblade's curse + magic missile is solved. Each dart does damage individually as stated in the spell.
Anything that is not discussing how hexblade's curse interacts with AOE attacks in general is just clutter in my notifications.
The spell doesn't state that each dart deals that damage, has been confirmed to state the opposite, and has no rules precedent to suggest that the single word "a" implies that it has something specific to override the general. While you are free to be dismissive of things that don't interest you, stating incorrectly that the issue is solved is quite...bold to say the least.
That said, pretty sure you can unsubscribe to posts you've commented on...if you feel this is clutter feel free to use the tools available to dip out of the conversation.
The [monster[Azer[/monster] should still take no damage, because of it's immunity to Fire Damage. In the first scenario, it would have no affect on any other monster. In the second scenario, it would still affect all 4 Monsters, because the roll is the thing being modified.
Ultimately, the conclusion we can reach here is that either Hexblade's Curse is poorly worded and leads to a lot of confusion over where you apply it, or the section of the rules regarding the order of operations for applying multiple spell modifiers is inadequately worded to address the variety of modifiers that exist in the game and how the formula interacts with them.
The first scenario is most likely what is intended, and frankly far more logical since Hexblade's Curse is attached to a specific creature, but without further clarification both are equally valid and the DM basically gets to decide.
From Xanathar's Guide to Everything, page 5, Resistance and Vulnerability: Here's the order that you apply modifiers to damage: (1) any relevant damage immunity, (2) any addition or subtraction to the damage, (3) one relevant damage resistance, and (4) one relevant damage vulnerability. The instance with the azer as the target would therefore be roll 8d6, apply fire damage immunity rendering the 8d6 null, add the proficiency bonus damage from hexblade's curse (also fire damage since hexblade's curse doesn't specify it's type), and there are no relevant resistances or vulnerabilities because the damage rendered null through the immunity. This is what I'm seeing when we from the reading that is being made. It's also absurd.
hexblade 1/sorcerer 1 casts magic missile at 3 separate targets including one that was previously cursed with hexblade's curse.
Target 1 [ ] = damage roll + relevant modifier = damage ==>5+0=5==>applied to creature
Target 2 [1d4+1 = 4+1=5] = damage roll + relevant modifier = damage ==>5+0=5==>applied to creature
Target 3 (hexblade's curse) [ ] = damage roll + relevant modifier = damage ==>5+2=7==>applied to creature
One damage roll (5). One creature cursed (target 3). Relevant modifier added (non universal, added to the damage roll). Final damage calculated.
Would it have been better had the wording said, "You gain a bonus to damage caused by a damage roll against the cursed target. The bonus equals your proficiency bonus." To differentiate it from flat damage options? Sure. But identifying that a proficiency bonus being added to a damage roll when a proficiency bonus is typically identified with an attack roll or a DC save is not groundbreaking (even if it would have done nothing in that instance without saying something along the line of double the proficiency bonus, or whatever the wording is for Expertise to work). Otherwise, I'm not seeing how the absurd scenario with the azer that I identified earlier isn't falling under the same ruling, except by saying that the immunity only applies to one creature. Which would be absurd when Hexblade's curse reads, " Starting at 1st level, you gain the ability to place a baleful curse on someone. As a bonus action, choose one creature you can see within 30 feet of you..." and yet you would be applying the curse to everyone targeted by an AoE.
It all comes back to the part where Hexblade's Curse specifies that it modifies the damage roll. It interacts very poorly and very strangely with multi-target and AoE effects. And frankly, I see no reason for it to even do that. It should be it's own separate effect. "When you deal damage, from any source, to the creature afflicted with Hexblade's Curse, it additionally takes your proficiency bonus in damage." Flavor it with either a specific damage type, or a short list of type options to pick from, and call it a day. That would render all this nonsense about multi-target and AoE spells irrelevant.
It's one of those linguistics things where everybody knows what's actually meant, but you can twist it several ways by playing semantics to get the outcome you want out of it. And it wreaks of lawyer-speak. Though, thematically that does make some sense, since we're talking about the Warlock, making eldritch pacts with arcane beings....
Exactly, but the thing here is we are assuming it works one way...we really don't know, just like many were unaware that Magic Missile is a single roll...there are just some rules that are overly wordy.
As far as the curse goes, if it is intended for it to only affect the creature under the curse, it is quite easy to just word it to clarify that...hence why part of me wonders if the wording was intentional and concise, since most of the edge cases wouldn't result in a huge damage bonus...it is just Magic Missile breaking things because it is the only spell that I can think of that doesn't have each bolt make you roll, so it follows the other rules where you just roll the damage die stated and that's that. That said if the intent was to work how most assume (myself included, I just prefer to side with RAW) than it really needs to be clarified.
That all said, it is pretty clear that a damage roll is a damage roll...multiple targets aren't affected by different rolls, because there is only 1, and using that as the basis to rule against what I described is basically making up rules because no one (myself included) wants to justify such a thing being possible.
There's another problem with how Hexblade's Curse is worded... that extra damage, what's its type? If the Warlock's attacking with a regular weapon, or a spell that only does one damage type, then it seems obvious the extra damage should be of that type... but what if the Warlock's attacking with a Flame Tongue weapon? Is the extra damage slashing/piercing, or fire?
Hexblade's curse doesn't specify, so it's exactly what causes the damage. In the case of Flame Tongue, I guess that would be slashing/piercing fire damage. Otherwise it would say so.
I know I've made a lot of comments, but I am still surprised that this is being discussed as in depth as it is, so thanks for that because I do find this to be an interesting thing to discuss.
EDIT: And yeah, Hexblade's curse is weird for not stating the damage type, similar to sneak attack...which also just does the damage type of the weapon but doesn't address what happens if the weapon deals elemental damage as well.
Aa far as I'm concerned, hexblade's curse + magic missile is solved. Each dart does damage individually as stated in the spell.
Anything that is not discussing how hexblade's curse interacts with AOE attacks in general is just clutter in my notifications.
The spell doesn't state that each dart deals that damage, has been confirmed to state the opposite, and has no rules precedent to suggest that the single word "a" implies that it has something specific to override the general. While you are free to be dismissive of things that don't interest you, stating incorrectly that the issue is solved is quite...bold to say the least.
That said, pretty sure you can unsubscribe to posts you've commented on...if you feel this is clutter feel free to use the tools available to dip out of the conversation.