The problem here is that Magic Missile is a single spell but multiple effects (each individual missile is an effect), and is pretty much the only spell that works quite that way (Scorching Ray hits multiple targets as part of a single action, but doesn't specify simultaneous).
In general where a spell has multiple effects, those effects are rolled separately (e.g. Ice Storm) but there's no specific rule discussing that.
Ah! I hadn't read this spell before! An excellent example of how bizarre MM is: our Int 20 L10 Evoker casting Ice Storm deals 2d8 bludgeoning + 4d6 cold + 5 <type requires homebrew; JC's recommended homebrew is that the wizard can choose bludgeoning or cold>, rolled once, and then every target saves for half damage (halving the damage is also not covered in the RAW due to the mixed types, but in my experience most GMs will houserule that you halve each type separately, which is why it also matters when the wizard chooses the type of their added damage, if indeed they choose). And yet, even though you roll once and then divide, people are arguing in this very thread that most definitely you don't roll once and then divide for Magic Missile, despite no rule anywhere saying this.
Try again. Nothing in the wording of that rule indicates that it shouldn't apply to magic missile. In fact, magic missile goes out of its way to tell you that the rule on p. 196 should apply; it might be the only spell in the entire edition that tells you that its discrete effects are simultaneous.
"A dart does" without "Every dart does the same." Not sure what you think you are reading.... Every spell is considered to have simultaneous effects unless specified otherwise. Scorching Ray, Eldritch Bolt duration instantaneous, not 1 round.
You (intentionally?) left out the rest of the sentence including "to its target." That, along with the fact that it is at the same time (as opposed to in sequence, apparently like spells suchas eldritch blast) that makes the rule on damage at one time apply.
As you say, each is its own attack. Part of each attack is resolving it. Multiple attacks are automatically in sequence.
Nothing actually says that. The Extra Attack feature gives attacks in sequence, but there is no general rule on the timing of attacks from other sources.
Go read about attacks again. As I said, rolling damage is part of the attack. In order to resolve an attack, you roll damage. Separate attacks = separate damage.
Go read about attacks again. As I said, rolling damage is part of the attack. In order to resolve an attack, you roll damage. Separate attacks = separate damage.
Edit: i should say what post this is a response to shouldn't I, I've failed at that like twice now wow.
Nothing actually says that. The Extra Attack feature gives attacks in sequence, but there is no general rule on the timing of attacks from other sources.
When casting a spell that affects multiple targets, such as scorching ray or eldritch blast , do I fire one ray or beam, determine the result, and fire again? Or do I have to choose all the targets before making any attack rolls?
Even though the duration of each of these spells is instantaneous, you choose the targets and resolve the attacks consecutively, not all at once. If you want, you can declare all your targets before making any attacks, but you would still roll separately for each attack (and damage, if appropriate).
Magic Missile overrides this general rule because it explicitly states the missiles hit simultaneously, Eldritch Blast does not.
When casting a spell that affects multiple targets, such as scorching ray or eldritch blast , do I fire one ray or beam, determine the result, and fire again? Or do I have to choose all the targets before making any attack rolls?
Even though the duration of each of these spells is instantaneous, you choose the targets and resolve the attacks consecutively, not all at once. If you want, you can declare all your targets before making any attacks, but you would still roll separately for each attack (and damage, if appropriate).
Magic Missile overrides this general rule because it explicitly states the missiles hit simultaneously, Eldritch Blast does not.
When casting a spell that affects multiple targets, such as scorching ray or eldritch blast , do I fire one ray or beam, determine the result, and fire again? Or do I have to choose all the targets before making any attack rolls?
Even though the duration of each of these spells is instantaneous, you choose the targets and resolve the attacks consecutively, not all at once. If you want, you can declare all your targets before making any attacks, but you would still roll separately for each attack (and damage, if appropriate).
Magic Missile overrides this general rule because it explicitly states the missiles hit simultaneously, Eldritch Blast does not.
Yes, magic missile requires you to choose all targets before resolving any of them. This is not relevant to the original assertion which was "separate attacks = separate damage".
When casting a spell that affects multiple targets, such as scorching ray or eldritch blast , do I fire one ray or beam, determine the result, and fire again? Or do I have to choose all the targets before making any attack rolls?
Even though the duration of each of these spells is instantaneous, you choose the targets and resolve the attacks consecutively, not all at once. If you want, you can declare all your targets before making any attacks, but you would still roll separately for each attack (and damage, if appropriate).
Magic Missile overrides this general rule because it explicitly states the missiles hit simultaneously, Eldritch Blast does not.
Yes, magic missile requires you to choose all targets before resolving any of them. This is not relevant to the original assertion which was "separate attacks = separate damage".
Which is the exact statement that you left in your quote reinforces. Each attack's resolution includes its own damage as part of that resolution. Multiple attacks = separate damage.
"When casting a spell that affects multiple targets... resolve the attacks consecutively, not all at once... roll separately for each attack (and damage, if appropriate)."
That seems to answer that assertion of "separate attacks = separate damage" extremely well.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
Which is the exact statement that you left in your quote reinforces. Each attack's resolution includes its own damage as part of that resolution. Multiple attacks = separate damage.
There is no reason the word 'simultaneous' could not be added to a spell with multiple attack rolls. It just wasn't. To the degree there's a relevant difference, it's the lack of that word. It has nothing to do with special properties of 'attack'.
Which is the exact statement that you left in your quote reinforces. Each attack's resolution includes its own damage as part of that resolution. Multiple attacks = separate damage.
There is no reason the word 'simultaneous' could not be added to a spell with multiple attack rolls. It just wasn't. To the degree there's a relevant difference, it's the lack of that word. It has nothing to do with special properties of 'attack'.
So you agree the lack of the word "simultaneous" means that other spells roll all their damage separately, because not rolling damage separately is a special property of "simultaneous" and not a special property of "attack"?
Edit: oops accidently simultaneous means roll separate damage- I meant the opposite lol, fixed.
No spell that gives area effects gives attacks. Attacks have damage. Each attack has damage. Separate attacks = multiple separate sources of damage. I can't imagine what the game looks like at your table.
So you agree the lack of the word "simultaneous" means that other spells roll all their damage separately, because rolling damage separately is a special property of "simultaneous" and not a special property of "attack"?
No, the word 'simultaneous' means you are required to allocate targets before rolling. It's the fact it's multiple effects that causes rolling damage separately.
No, the word 'simultaneous' means you are required to allocate targets before rolling. It's the fact it's multiple effects that causes rolling damage separately.
This also violates page 196, in the case where you have at least two targets. RAW, if a spell applies damage more than one target simultaneously (which is synonymous with at the same time), you must roll the damage once for all of them, whatever that means. Magic Missile's inclusion of the word simultaneous forces the page on rule 196 to apply when you have 2 or more targets. The problem, of course, is that this is often impossible to obey.
This also violates page 196, in the case where you have at least two targets. RAW, if a spell applies damage more than one target simultaneously (which is synonymous with at the same time)
'Simultaneous' is more restrictive than 'at the same time', because the latter only requires matching clocks, and the clock granularity of D&D is pretty substantial. The other problem is that even spells that this rule is obviously intended to apply to, such as fireball, do not actually say that damage is simultaneous.
Well yes because AoE spells generally hit multiple targets at the same time. Attack spells have the general rule of doing the exact opposite, thus the specific rule of "simultaneous" must be added in.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Ah! I hadn't read this spell before! An excellent example of how bizarre MM is: our Int 20 L10 Evoker casting Ice Storm deals 2d8 bludgeoning + 4d6 cold + 5 <type requires homebrew; JC's recommended homebrew is that the wizard can choose bludgeoning or cold>, rolled once, and then every target saves for half damage (halving the damage is also not covered in the RAW due to the mixed types, but in my experience most GMs will houserule that you halve each type separately, which is why it also matters when the wizard chooses the type of their added damage, if indeed they choose). And yet, even though you roll once and then divide, people are arguing in this very thread that most definitely you don't roll once and then divide for Magic Missile, despite no rule anywhere saying this.
You (intentionally?) left out the rest of the sentence including "to its target." That, along with the fact that it is at the same time (as opposed to in sequence, apparently like spells suchas eldritch blast) that makes the rule on damage at one time apply.
As you say, each is its own attack. Part of each attack is resolving it. Multiple attacks are automatically in sequence.
Nothing actually says that. The Extra Attack feature gives attacks in sequence, but there is no general rule on the timing of attacks from other sources.
Go read about attacks again. As I said, rolling damage is part of the attack. In order to resolve an attack, you roll damage. Separate attacks = separate damage.
They're still occurring at the same time.
You have an interpretation problem. I give up.
Edit: i should say what post this is a response to shouldn't I, I've failed at that like twice now wow.
okay end of edit.
Perhaps instead of giving up, you can just reference the relevant text. (yes the SAC is considered RAW)
Magic Missile overrides this general rule because it explicitly states the missiles hit simultaneously, Eldritch Blast does not.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
Thank you, but my issue isn't with the rules.
Yes, magic missile requires you to choose all targets before resolving any of them. This is not relevant to the original assertion which was "separate attacks = separate damage".
Which is the exact statement that you left in your quote reinforces. Each attack's resolution includes its own damage as part of that resolution. Multiple attacks = separate damage.
Did you uh, read the quote?
"When casting a spell that affects multiple targets... resolve the attacks consecutively, not all at once... roll separately for each attack (and damage, if appropriate)."
That seems to answer that assertion of "separate attacks = separate damage" extremely well.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
There is no reason the word 'simultaneous' could not be added to a spell with multiple attack rolls. It just wasn't. To the degree there's a relevant difference, it's the lack of that word. It has nothing to do with special properties of 'attack'.
So you agree the lack of the word "simultaneous" means that other spells roll all their damage separately, because not rolling damage separately is a special property of "simultaneous" and not a special property of "attack"?
Edit: oops accidently simultaneous means roll separate damage- I meant the opposite lol, fixed.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
No spell that gives area effects gives attacks. Attacks have damage. Each attack has damage. Separate attacks = multiple separate sources of damage. I can't imagine what the game looks like at your table.
No, the word 'simultaneous' means you are required to allocate targets before rolling. It's the fact it's multiple effects that causes rolling damage separately.
It's both actually. There are tons of spells with multiple effects where you roll separately, like I mention here.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
This also violates page 196, in the case where you have at least two targets. RAW, if a spell applies damage more than one target simultaneously (which is synonymous with at the same time), you must roll the damage once for all of them, whatever that means. Magic Missile's inclusion of the word simultaneous forces the page on rule 196 to apply when you have 2 or more targets. The problem, of course, is that this is often impossible to obey.
'Simultaneous' is more restrictive than 'at the same time', because the latter only requires matching clocks, and the clock granularity of D&D is pretty substantial. The other problem is that even spells that this rule is obviously intended to apply to, such as fireball, do not actually say that damage is simultaneous.
Well yes because AoE spells generally hit multiple targets at the same time. Attack spells have the general rule of doing the exact opposite, thus the specific rule of "simultaneous" must be added in.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.