Every singular, countable noun in English must have an article, whereas non-countable nouns and plural nouns do not require an article
When do we use articles?
We only use a/an with singular countable nouns:
I have a sister and a brother.
A dart deals 1d4+1 force damage to it's target.
Therefore by rule of the English language used in the defining of the Magic Missile spell, one rolls 1d4+1 per dart created.
All this tells us is that an individual dart does an amount of damage, it doesn't in any way specify that the darts do different amounts of damage. If it instead stated that "A dart deals 1+int mod force damage to its target" you wouldn't recalculate the damage for each dart.
There is no question that if each dart hit multiple targets, they would do the same damage to every target, but they don't; each dart hits a single target and the spell creates multiple darts. However, unlike every other spell that creates multiple distinct damage effects, magic missile specifies that the darts are simultaneous. The RAI question then becomes 'why does it say that'?
The likely reason is that you're supposed to allocate missiles before resolving any of them, which spells like scorching ray do not require, but the text doesn't say. However, it's pretty clear that making it into the best single target nuke in the game when used in combination with class features such as Empowered Evocation was not intended.
And yet, he uses the specific term RAW. As for literal RAW, if it was as clear cut as you are arguing it to be, we would not be having this debate.
As stated before, WOTC does not recognize Crawford's Tweets as official RAW, therefore his tweets are just his opinion of the subject.
The debate as to whether one rolls once for all missiles/darts to have equal damage per missile/dart or to roll for every missile/dart created has been going on since the spell first appeared in the BECMI ruleset, and has been agreed as personal preference.
Yet within this thread and others, the "one for all" All-Might interpretation of the spell leads others to believe that because only one roll is used that it allows for other general rules to apply. They don't apply, because the very specific wording of the Magic Missile spell prevents them from applying.
If your DM lets you use the All-Might interpretation, that's fine, just remember both of you are breaking the specific beats general rule.
What I find most interesting about Crawford's tweet, though, is that he says RAI is 'personal preference.' That makes no sense if that is RAW and given that is easily to see as RAW. This implies strongly that it was actually discussed internally at some point during the writing of the rules and what he says is RAW is what was decided, irrespective of WotC's overall position regarding his tweets.
Crawford had a team of individuals that collectively debated the wording of the rules, and singed off on the collective agreement of said wording. Crawford himself is not the soul author of the rules he was just another contributor and that is why WotC has stated Crawford's tweets are not Rules As Written.
Every singular, countable noun in English must have an article, whereas non-countable nouns and plural nouns do not require an article
When do we use articles?
We only use a/an with singular countable nouns:
I have a sister and a brother.
A dart deals 1d4+1 force damage to it's target.
Therefore by rule of the English language used in the defining of the Magic Missile spell, one rolls 1d4+1 per dart created.
All this tells us is that an individual dart does an amount of damage, it doesn't in any way specify that the darts do different amounts of damage. If it instead stated that "A dart deals 1+int mod force damage to its target" you wouldn't recalculate the damage for each dart.
So if an individual dart deals a amount of damage, and that individual darts' damage is randomly determined by rolling a d4, that would specify each dart individually does a different random amount of damage. That is very specific, and a contradiction to the general rule of p196. We all agree specific beats general do we not?
As I posted earlier, RAW is "A dart deals 1d4+1 force damage to it's target" which means the general rule of p196 does not apply.
By assertion? Or is there actual substance to this claim? Because it certainly isn't in the text. Is there some rule that you're trying to point to without actually doing all that work? None of the rules on either side of the argument really point at whether a word is plural as a defining feature to how the rules behave. All I am asking for is an explanation rather than an assertion. (I actually don't care to argue it, because as I've said, after 13+ pages of this, I doubt anyone is going to convince anyone, and I am competent enough to realize what I think the rules intend and how that might differ from how I play the game myself.)
Yet as you and others have debated, by RAI ( Rules As Interpreted aka "Personal Preference" not Rules as Intended ) rather then RAW ( Rules As Written aka Rules As Worded ), a single roll is used for the damage applied to all targets when the "Each dart hits a creature of your choice that you can see within range. A dart deals 1d4 + 1 force damage to its target." specifically Written and Worded Rule of the MM spell describes the intention of how the spell works.
I am in no way trying to change anyone's mind as to how they should play the game, nor how they wish to interpret the rules. Nor am I trying to discredit or belittle their point of view on the subject.
But when someone starts to use their personal interpretation to say "No it is this way, your interpretation is incorrect", well now your trying to convince others that your personal interpretation is what the RAW is intended to do.
Even Crawford has said the Rules As Written stand on their own as to the intention of what they do generally, however everybody interprets the rules as they see fit.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
So if an individual dart deals a amount of damage, and that individual darts' damage is randomly determined by rolling a d4, that would specify each dart individually does a different random amount of damage. That is very specific, and a contradiction to the general rule of p196. We all agree specific beats general do we not?
No part of it says that the individual dart's damage is randomly determined by rolling a d4, just that the damage of a dart from the spell is determined by rolling a d4. So RAW, you roll a d4 and that's the damage from each dart. There's nothing to suggest that each dart is determined by its own d4. The language is very similar to what is used for AoE spells such as fireball "A target takes 8d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one."
But when someone starts to use their personal interpretation to say "No it is this way, your interpretation is incorrect", well now your trying to convince others that your personal interpretation is what the RAW is intended to do.
RAW is 'damage to all targets is the same' (damage rolls) and 'no matter how many missiles hit a target, it only takes damage from one' (combining magical effects). Nothing in magic missile grants an exemption to either general rule. As this is obviously not RAI, people try to interpret it in a way that makes sense. The easiest fix is to eliminate 'simultaneous'.
So if an individual dart deals a amount of damage, and that individual darts' damage is randomly determined by rolling a d4, that would specify each dart individually does a different random amount of damage. That is very specific, and a contradiction to the general rule of p196. We all agree specific beats general do we not?
No part of it says that the individual dart's damage is randomly determined by rolling a d4, just that the damage of a dart from the spell is determined by rolling a d4. So RAW, you roll a d4 and that's the damage from each dart. There's nothing to suggest that each dart is determined by its own d4. The language is very similar to what is used for AoE spells such as fireball "A target takes 8d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one."
Every singular, countable noun in English must have an article, whereas non-countable nouns and plural nouns do not require an article
When do we use articles?
We only use a/an with singular countable nouns:
I have a sister and a brother.
A dart deals 1d4+1 force damage to it's target.
Therefore by rule of the English language used in the defining of the Magic Missile spell, one rolls 1d4+1 per dart created.
All this tells us is that an individual dart does an amount of damage, it doesn't in any way specify that the darts do different amounts of damage. If it instead stated that "A dart deals 1+int mod force damage to its target" you wouldn't recalculate the damage for each dart.
Even you stated "All this tells us is that an individual dart does an amount of damage", which would acknowledge each dart is independent from other darts created.
If as you say "it doesn't in any way specify that the darts do different amounts of damage", why do you have to roll for damage at all? Maybe because not all darts are created equally?
Fireball: Each creature in a 20-foot-radius sphere centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw. A target takes 8d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.
very different from: Each dart hits a creature of your choice that you can see within range. A dart deals 1d4 + 1 force damage to its target.
Why? because a fireball can't multi-target the same creature the way Magic Missile allows. therefore MM is NOT an AOE spell.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
Actually, fireball and magic missile seem like they’re written to be quite evocative of each other. It is amost so close it seems intentional. Like they took a multi-target spell and just modified it so that each dart’s target could be the same creature (and doubled down on that by making sure that the darts hit simultaneously).
And you point out that magic missile isn’t an AoE spell. Great. Just a few posts ago, I pointed out that the rule about rolling damage for multi-target spells doesn’t care at all whether a spell is an area spell.
Also, unless you're talking about those recent posts (which apparently you didn't read, otherwise you'd know that dice don't depend on area), you're judging my current position on text I wrote over a year and a half ago. I couldn't tell you what I wrote on this topic then.
Even you stated "All this tells us is that an individual dart does an amount of damage", which would acknowledge each dart is independent from other darts created.
Acknowledging that multiple darts exist and that they each do damage is not an acknowledgement that the damage dealt is independent of one another. It is both possible and intended by design that the darts are copies of each other.
Further, Jeremy Crawford's rules were considered official at the time he had addressed the question of magic missile. Additionally, the decision to rule his tweets as no longer official was not made without JC's input; he specifically stated that he did not wish for people to crawl through his tweets to find clarification on rules, not that his judgement is suspect. Lastly, even if his posts are not RAW as of 2019, they are still and have always been rules as intended.
The linguistic gymnastics are purely academic - The RAW offered by WotC does not state to roll damage for each dart, and the advice offered by the Principle Rule Designer of 5e has been provided and is consistent with RAW. However, if you wish to roll multiple times when casting MM, you can certainly do so if your DM permits it.
But when someone starts to use their personal interpretation to say "No it is this way, your interpretation is incorrect", well now your trying to convince others that your personal interpretation is what the RAW is intended to do.
RAW is 'damage to all targets is the same' (damage rolls) and 'no matter how many missiles hit a target, it only takes damage from one' (combining magical effects). Nothing in magic missile grants an exemption to either general rule. As this is obviously not RAI, people try to interpret it in a way that makes sense. The easiest fix is to eliminate 'simultaneous'.
If that is so, again why even have the sentence "Each dart hits a creature of your choice that you can see within range."? That seems pretty specific wording meaning 'damage to all targets is not / would not be the same' even if you use a one roll for all darts created and would be the exemption to the general damage rolls rule. It is the same as trying to shove a 5 inch square peg into a 4 inch round hole, after all is said and done the effect is to destroy the specific to fit the general.
Even you stated "All this tells us is that an individual dart does an amount of damage", which would acknowledge each dart is independent from other darts created.
Acknowledging that multiple darts exist and that they each do damage is not an acknowledgement that the damage dealt is independent of one another. It is both possible and intended by design that the darts are copies of each other.
Further, Jeremy Crawford's rules were considered official at the time he had addressed the question of magic missile. Additionally, the decision to rule his tweets as no longer official was not made without JC's input; he specifically stated that he did not wish for people to crawl through his tweets to find clarification on rules, not that his judgement is suspect. Lastly, even if his posts are not RAW as of 2019, they are still and have always been rules as intended.
The linguistic gymnastics are purely academic - The RAW offered by WotC does not state to roll damage for each dart, and the advise offered by the Principle Rule Designer of 5e has been provided and is consistent with RAW. However, if you wish to roll multiple times when casting MM, you can certainly do so if your DM permits it.
True the intended design might have been that all darts of the Magic Missile are copies of each other, yet the rules designers choose to specifically use wording as RAW that allows each dart to randomly have a different damage value than any other dart. If the intent was to have all darts do the exact same amount of damage, they would not refer to the dart in the singular when defining the damage the dart does, and would have long since close the debate on whether one rolls each dart separately or as a whole.
As for JC and his tweets, they were never official. It was only after WotC received so many complaints and questions asking if JC's tweets were actual RAW that both Wotc and JC came to an agreement. JC would formally submit his tweets to WotC for review and revision to publish what is now the SAC, WotC in return wouldn't pursue JC legally. Ever notice how the MM tweet is nowhere to be found in any official publication? That's because that specific tweet contradicts the official published RAW of the Magic Missile spell, and JC alone does not have the ability nor the right to do so without WotC review and approval. JC's tweets are not Rules As Intended, never have been or ever will be, they are just his interpretation of what the rules are.
The RAW offered by WotC concerning Magic Missile does clearly state damage per missile is a random d4 roll. "A dart does 1d4+1 force damage to it's target" is smack dab in the center of the spell's description, and as I posted earlier, the English language used in defining and describing the spell references the dart in the singular vernacular. That makes JC's tweet inconsistent with WotC official RAW, and his advice purely interpretation of how he handles the spell.
As far as whether one wishes to roll multiple times or once is the player/casters prerogative, and any decent DM would advise the player as to which method is preferred rather than tell you it has to be roll their specific way. As a player and a DM, I roll/allow the player to decide which they prefer, understanding in full what the official RAW and intent of the Magic Missile spell is.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
As far as whether one wishes to roll multiple times or once is the player/casters prerogative, and any decent DM would advise the player as to which method is preferred rather than tell you it has to be roll their specific way. As a player and a DM, I roll/allow the player to decide which they prefer, understanding in full what the official RAW and intent of the Magic Missile spell is.
Magic Missile hasn't got any RAW for what happens when you hit multiple targets for different numbers of darts each, unless you mean you understand that the RAW is unavailable. All we have are the rules for hitting any number of targets T for the same number of darts each, and said rules change depending on whether T=1 or T>1.
As far as whether one wishes to roll multiple times or once is the player/casters prerogative, and any decent DM would advise the player as to which method is preferred rather than tell you it has to be roll their specific way. As a player and a DM, I roll/allow the player to decide which they prefer, understanding in full what the official RAW and intent of the Magic Missile spell is.
Magic Missile hasn't got any RAW for what happens when you hit multiple targets for different numbers of darts each, unless you mean you understand that the RAW is unavailable. All we have are the rules for hitting any number of targets T for the same number of darts each, and said rules change depending on whether T=1 or T>1.
Magic Missile spell does have RAW for what happens when you multi-target creatures with different numbers of darts.
The darts all strike simultaneously, and you can direct them to hit one creature or several.
SO, example time:
a wizard stands 50 feet from two goblins and 70 feet from a hobgoblin. The wizard cast MM at level 6 and creates 8 darts. the wizards then directs the first dart to hit the goblin on the left, the second dart to the goblin to the right, the third dart to the hobgoblin, the fourth dart to the goblin to the right, the fifth dart to the hobgoblin, the sixth dart to that goblin on the right again because it's an ugly sucker, and the seventh and eighth dart to the hobgoblin as he hurts so good.
What do we have so far? Left goblin = 1 dart , right goblin = 3 darts , hobgoblin = 4 darts.
Result: left goblin - 1 dart to hit ; 2 points of damage(hurt) , right goblin - 3 darts to hit ; 15 points of total damage ( Dead ) , Hobgoblin - 4 darts to hit ; 13 points of total damage ( seems ticked and hurt ) [ all darts hit their respective targets at the same time ]
In the end what is the final result: MM spell casted and used per RAW and RAI. [ and that right goblin got toasted ]
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
But when someone starts to use their personal interpretation to say "No it is this way, your interpretation is incorrect", well now your trying to convince others that your personal interpretation is what the RAW is intended to do.
RAW is 'damage to all targets is the same' (damage rolls) and 'no matter how many missiles hit a target, it only takes damage from one' (combining magical effects). Nothing in magic missile grants an exemption to either general rule. As this is obviously not RAI, people try to interpret it in a way that makes sense. The easiest fix is to eliminate 'simultaneous'.
If that is so, again why even have the sentence "Each dart hits a creature of your choice that you can see within range."? That seems pretty specific wording meaning 'damage to all targets is not / would not be the same' even if you use a one roll for all darts created and would be the exemption to the general damage rolls rule. It is the same as trying to shove a 5 inch square peg into a 4 inch round hole, after all is said and done the effect is to destroy the specific to fit the general.
Even you stated "All this tells us is that an individual dart does an amount of damage", which would acknowledge each dart is independent from other darts created.
Acknowledging that multiple darts exist and that they each do damage is not an acknowledgement that the damage dealt is independent of one another. It is both possible and intended by design that the darts are copies of each other.
Further, Jeremy Crawford's rules were considered official at the time he had addressed the question of magic missile. Additionally, the decision to rule his tweets as no longer official was not made without JC's input; he specifically stated that he did not wish for people to crawl through his tweets to find clarification on rules, not that his judgement is suspect. Lastly, even if his posts are not RAW as of 2019, they are still and have always been rules as intended.
The linguistic gymnastics are purely academic - The RAW offered by WotC does not state to roll damage for each dart, and the advise offered by the Principle Rule Designer of 5e has been provided and is consistent with RAW. However, if you wish to roll multiple times when casting MM, you can certainly do so if your DM permits it.
True the intended design might have been that all darts of the Magic Missile are copies of each other, yet the rules designers choose to specifically use wording as RAW that allows each dart to randomly have a different damage value than any other dart. If the intent was to have all darts do the exact same amount of damage, they would not refer to the dart in the singular when defining the damage the dart does, and would have long since close the debate on whether one rolls each dart separately or as a whole.
As for JC and his tweets, they were never official. It was only after WotC received so many complaints and questions asking if JC's tweets were actual RAW that both Wotc and JC came to an agreement. JC would formally submit his tweets to WotC for review and revision to publish what is now the SAC, WotC in return wouldn't pursue JC legally. Ever notice how the MM tweet is nowhere to be found in any official publication? That's because that specific tweet contradicts the official published RAW of the Magic Missile spell, and JC alone does not have the ability nor the right to do so without WotC review and approval. JC's tweets are not Rules As Intended, never have been or ever will be, they are just his interpretation of what the rules are.
The RAW offered by WotC concerning Magic Missile does clearly state damage per missile is a random d4 roll. "A dart does 1d4+1 force damage to it's target" is smack dab in the center of the spell's description, and as I posted earlier, the English language used in defining and describing the spell references the dart in the singular vernacular. That makes JC's tweet inconsistent with WotC official RAW, and his advice purely interpretation of how he handles the spell.
As far as whether one wishes to roll multiple times or once is the player/casters prerogative, and any decent DM would advise the player as to which method is preferred rather than tell you it has to be roll their specific way. As a player and a DM, I roll/allow the player to decide which they prefer, understanding in full what the official RAW and intent of the Magic Missile spell is.
"Official rulings on how to interpret unclear rules are made in Sage Advice. The public statements of the D&D team, or anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice. One exception: the game’s rules manager, Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford), can make official rulings and usually does so in Sage Advice and on Twitter."
"As of the January edition of the Sage Advice Compendium PDF, my tweets aren't official rulings. I don't want people having to sift through my tweets for official rules calls."
This is perfectly clear. The why followed the what. There was no internal battle where JC needed to be put on a leash. If you can be wrong on this matter, is it really so hard to believe that you could also be wrong on other specific issues?
If that is so, again why even have the sentence "Each dart hits a creature of your choice that you can see within range."? That seems pretty specific wording meaning 'damage to all targets is not / would not be the same' even if you use a one roll for all darts created and would be the exemption to the general damage rolls rule. It is the same as trying to shove a 5 inch square peg into a 4 inch round hole, after all is said and done the effect is to destroy the specific to fit the general.
Nothing in your quoted sentence says anything about the damage of each dart. That pretty specific wording does not mention anything at all about damage.
But when someone starts to use their personal interpretation to say "No it is this way, your interpretation is incorrect", well now your trying to convince others that your personal interpretation is what the RAW is intended to do.
RAW is 'damage to all targets is the same' (damage rolls) and 'no matter how many missiles hit a target, it only takes damage from one' (combining magical effects). Nothing in magic missile grants an exemption to either general rule. As this is obviously not RAI, people try to interpret it in a way that makes sense. The easiest fix is to eliminate 'simultaneous'.
If that is so, again why even have the sentence "Each dart hits a creature of your choice that you can see within range."? That seems pretty specific wording meaning 'damage to all targets is not / would not be the same' even if you use a one roll for all darts created and would be the exemption to the general damage rolls rule. It is the same as trying to shove a 5 inch square peg into a 4 inch round hole, after all is said and done the effect is to destroy the specific to fit the general.
Even you stated "All this tells us is that an individual dart does an amount of damage", which would acknowledge each dart is independent from other darts created.
Acknowledging that multiple darts exist and that they each do damage is not an acknowledgement that the damage dealt is independent of one another. It is both possible and intended by design that the darts are copies of each other.
Further, Jeremy Crawford's rules were considered official at the time he had addressed the question of magic missile. Additionally, the decision to rule his tweets as no longer official was not made without JC's input; he specifically stated that he did not wish for people to crawl through his tweets to find clarification on rules, not that his judgement is suspect. Lastly, even if his posts are not RAW as of 2019, they are still and have always been rules as intended.
The linguistic gymnastics are purely academic - The RAW offered by WotC does not state to roll damage for each dart, and the advise offered by the Principle Rule Designer of 5e has been provided and is consistent with RAW. However, if you wish to roll multiple times when casting MM, you can certainly do so if your DM permits it.
True the intended design might have been that all darts of the Magic Missile are copies of each other, yet the rules designers choose to specifically use wording as RAW that allows each dart to randomly have a different damage value than any other dart. If the intent was to have all darts do the exact same amount of damage, they would not refer to the dart in the singular when defining the damage the dart does, and would have long since close the debate on whether one rolls each dart separately or as a whole.
As for JC and his tweets, they were never official. It was only after WotC received so many complaints and questions asking if JC's tweets were actual RAW that both Wotc and JC came to an agreement. JC would formally submit his tweets to WotC for review and revision to publish what is now the SAC, WotC in return wouldn't pursue JC legally. Ever notice how the MM tweet is nowhere to be found in any official publication? That's because that specific tweet contradicts the official published RAW of the Magic Missile spell, and JC alone does not have the ability nor the right to do so without WotC review and approval. JC's tweets are not Rules As Intended, never have been or ever will be, they are just his interpretation of what the rules are.
The RAW offered by WotC concerning Magic Missile does clearly state damage per missile is a random d4 roll. "A dart does 1d4+1 force damage to it's target" is smack dab in the center of the spell's description, and as I posted earlier, the English language used in defining and describing the spell references the dart in the singular vernacular. That makes JC's tweet inconsistent with WotC official RAW, and his advice purely interpretation of how he handles the spell.
As far as whether one wishes to roll multiple times or once is the player/casters prerogative, and any decent DM would advise the player as to which method is preferred rather than tell you it has to be roll their specific way. As a player and a DM, I roll/allow the player to decide which they prefer, understanding in full what the official RAW and intent of the Magic Missile spell is.
"Official rulings on how to interpret unclear rules are made in Sage Advice. The public statements of the D&D team, or anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice. One exception: the game’s rules manager, Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford), can make official rulings and usually does so in Sage Advice and on Twitter."
"As of the January edition of the Sage Advice Compendium PDF, my tweets aren't official rulings. I don't want people having to sift through my tweets for official rules calls."
This is perfectly clear. The why followed the what. There was no internal battle where JC needed to be put on a leash. If you can be wrong on this matter, is it really so hard to believe that you could also be wrong on other specific issues?
"The public statements of the D&D team, or anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice. The tweets of Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford), the game’s principal rules designer, are sometimes a preview of rulings that appear here."
They changed their tune in regards to JC's use of twitter to make official rulings outside WotC's review.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
If that is so, again why even have the sentence "Each dart hits a creature of your choice that you can see within range."? That seems pretty specific wording meaning 'damage to all targets is not / would not be the same' even if you use a one roll for all darts created and would be the exemption to the general damage rolls rule. It is the same as trying to shove a 5 inch square peg into a 4 inch round hole, after all is said and done the effect is to destroy the specific to fit the general.
Nothing in your quoted sentence says anything about the damage of each dart. That pretty specific wording does not mention anything at all about damage.
Might want to jump back about 100 post, read all that was offered, then feel free to PM me.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
But when someone starts to use their personal interpretation to say "No it is this way, your interpretation is incorrect", well now your trying to convince others that your personal interpretation is what the RAW is intended to do.
RAW is 'damage to all targets is the same' (damage rolls) and 'no matter how many missiles hit a target, it only takes damage from one' (combining magical effects). Nothing in magic missile grants an exemption to either general rule. As this is obviously not RAI, people try to interpret it in a way that makes sense. The easiest fix is to eliminate 'simultaneous'.
If that is so, again why even have the sentence "Each dart hits a creature of your choice that you can see within range."? That seems pretty specific wording meaning 'damage to all targets is not / would not be the same' even if you use a one roll for all darts created and would be the exemption to the general damage rolls rule. It is the same as trying to shove a 5 inch square peg into a 4 inch round hole, after all is said and done the effect is to destroy the specific to fit the general.
Even you stated "All this tells us is that an individual dart does an amount of damage", which would acknowledge each dart is independent from other darts created.
Acknowledging that multiple darts exist and that they each do damage is not an acknowledgement that the damage dealt is independent of one another. It is both possible and intended by design that the darts are copies of each other.
Further, Jeremy Crawford's rules were considered official at the time he had addressed the question of magic missile. Additionally, the decision to rule his tweets as no longer official was not made without JC's input; he specifically stated that he did not wish for people to crawl through his tweets to find clarification on rules, not that his judgement is suspect. Lastly, even if his posts are not RAW as of 2019, they are still and have always been rules as intended.
The linguistic gymnastics are purely academic - The RAW offered by WotC does not state to roll damage for each dart, and the advise offered by the Principle Rule Designer of 5e has been provided and is consistent with RAW. However, if you wish to roll multiple times when casting MM, you can certainly do so if your DM permits it.
True the intended design might have been that all darts of the Magic Missile are copies of each other, yet the rules designers choose to specifically use wording as RAW that allows each dart to randomly have a different damage value than any other dart. If the intent was to have all darts do the exact same amount of damage, they would not refer to the dart in the singular when defining the damage the dart does, and would have long since close the debate on whether one rolls each dart separately or as a whole.
As for JC and his tweets, they were never official. It was only after WotC received so many complaints and questions asking if JC's tweets were actual RAW that both Wotc and JC came to an agreement. JC would formally submit his tweets to WotC for review and revision to publish what is now the SAC, WotC in return wouldn't pursue JC legally. Ever notice how the MM tweet is nowhere to be found in any official publication? That's because that specific tweet contradicts the official published RAW of the Magic Missile spell, and JC alone does not have the ability nor the right to do so without WotC review and approval. JC's tweets are not Rules As Intended, never have been or ever will be, they are just his interpretation of what the rules are.
The RAW offered by WotC concerning Magic Missile does clearly state damage per missile is a random d4 roll. "A dart does 1d4+1 force damage to it's target" is smack dab in the center of the spell's description, and as I posted earlier, the English language used in defining and describing the spell references the dart in the singular vernacular. That makes JC's tweet inconsistent with WotC official RAW, and his advice purely interpretation of how he handles the spell.
As far as whether one wishes to roll multiple times or once is the player/casters prerogative, and any decent DM would advise the player as to which method is preferred rather than tell you it has to be roll their specific way. As a player and a DM, I roll/allow the player to decide which they prefer, understanding in full what the official RAW and intent of the Magic Missile spell is.
"Official rulings on how to interpret unclear rules are made in Sage Advice. The public statements of the D&D team, or anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice. One exception: the game’s rules manager, Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford), can make official rulings and usually does so in Sage Advice and on Twitter."
"As of the January edition of the Sage Advice Compendium PDF, my tweets aren't official rulings. I don't want people having to sift through my tweets for official rules calls."
This is perfectly clear. The why followed the what. There was no internal battle where JC needed to be put on a leash. If you can be wrong on this matter, is it really so hard to believe that you could also be wrong on other specific issues?
"The public statements of the D&D team, or anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice. The tweets of Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford), the game’s principal rules designer, are sometimes a preview of rulings that appear here."
They changed their tune in regards to JC's use of twitter to make official rulings outside WotC's review.
Oh dear, you are confused. I am not saying that JC's tweets are currently official rulings. In fact, if you read my post again, you will note that I stated that since the tweet in 2019 (which predates your 2020 SA Compendium), that they are no longer official rulings. The reason for the links was to show you that the tweets were at one time, official rulings. I am astounded you made this post since the posts that came before where on whether JC's tweets were ever official rulings.
But you don't have to take my post at face value, the evidence is in this very post pyramid. See above... or below. Whichever you prefer.
Further, Jeremy Crawford's rules were considered official at the time he had addressed the question of magic missile. Additionally, the decision to rule his tweets as no longer official was not made without JC's input; he specifically stated that he did not wish for people to crawl through his tweets to find clarification on rules, not that his judgement is suspect. Lastly, even if his posts are not RAW as of 2019, they are still and have always been rules as intended.
Further, Jeremy Crawford's rules were considered official at the time he had addressed the question of magic missile. Additionally, the decision to rule his tweets as no longer official was not made without JC's input; he specifically stated that he did not wish for people to crawl through his tweets to find clarification on rules, not that his judgement is suspect. Lastly, even if his posts are not RAW as of 2019, they are still and have always been rules as intended.
As of the January edition of the Sage Advice Compendium PDF, my tweets aren't official rulings. I don't want people having to sift through my tweets for official rules calls. My tweets will preview official rulings in the compendium. And remember, the DM has the final say.
Which means when the 2019 SAC came out, all of his tweets lost any official creditability in being deemed RAW and RAI.
He knew he overstepped with the 2018 Magic Missile tweet, and WotC made that clear with the very same statement in the beginning of the 2019 SAC that is the very same as the 2020 SAC.
So, no not confused what-so-ever. JC stuck his head out, and was lucky it didn't get chopped off. His 2018 Magic Missile tweet is unofficial and therefore NOT RAW.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
Further, Jeremy Crawford's rules were considered official at the time he had addressed the question of magic missile. Additionally, the decision to rule his tweets as no longer official was not made without JC's input; he specifically stated that he did not wish for people to crawl through his tweets to find clarification on rules, not that his judgement is suspect. Lastly, even if his posts are not RAW as of 2019, they are still and have always been rules as intended.
As of the January edition of the Sage Advice Compendium PDF, my tweets aren't official rulings. I don't want people having to sift through my tweets for official rules calls. My tweets will preview official rulings in the compendium. And remember, the DM has the final say.
Which means when the 2019 SAC came out, all of his tweets lost any official creditability in being deemed RAW and RAI.
He knew he overstepped with the 2018 Magic Missile tweet, and WotC made that clear with the very same statement in the beginning of the 2019 SAC that is the very same as the 2020 SAC.
So, no not confused what-so-ever. JC stuck his head out, and was lucky it didn't get chopped off. His 2018 Magic Missile tweet is unofficial and therefore NOT RAW.
Again, you are confused. He is simply stating that while at one time they were official rulings (like when answering questions on MM), and that now they no longer are. That is not really material though, since the issue was that you stated that his tweets were never official, which is demonstrably wrong.
But, I can see that finding correct answers is secondary to your compulsive need to be perceived as right, so I am going to leave this discussion as I have already provided evidence that you are incorrect. Nothing of value can be found in an extended conversation with you. Good luck with... whatever this is.
Further, Jeremy Crawford's rules were considered official at the time he had addressed the question of magic missile. Additionally, the decision to rule his tweets as no longer official was not made without JC's input; he specifically stated that he did not wish for people to crawl through his tweets to find clarification on rules, not that his judgement is suspect. Lastly, even if his posts are not RAW as of 2019, they are still and have always been rules as intended.
As of the January edition of the Sage Advice Compendium PDF, my tweets aren't official rulings. I don't want people having to sift through my tweets for official rules calls. My tweets will preview official rulings in the compendium. And remember, the DM has the final say.
Which means when the 2019 SAC came out, all of his tweets lost any official creditability in being deemed RAW and RAI.
He knew he overstepped with the 2018 Magic Missile tweet, and WotC made that clear with the very same statement in the beginning of the 2019 SAC that is the very same as the 2020 SAC.
So, no not confused what-so-ever. JC stuck his head out, and was lucky it didn't get chopped off. His 2018 Magic Missile tweet is unofficial and therefore NOT RAW.
Again, you are confused. He is simply stating that while at one time they were official rulings (like when answering questions on MM), and that now they no longer are. That is not really material though, since the issue was that you stated that his tweets were never official, which is demonstrably wrong.
But, I can see that finding correct answers is secondary to your compulsive need to be perceived as right, so I am going to leave this discussion as I have already provided evidence that you are incorrect. Nothing of value can be found in an extended conversation with you. Good luck with... whatever this is.
Hey, your entitled to your opinion. JC in that tweet never said his former tweets were official, just that as of January 2019 SAC those tweets had to be considered unofficial and therefore by both himself and WotC standards were never official. Only when those tweets became official SAC printed content did the tweets regain any creditability.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
All this tells us is that an individual dart does an amount of damage, it doesn't in any way specify that the darts do different amounts of damage. If it instead stated that "A dart deals 1+int mod force damage to its target" you wouldn't recalculate the damage for each dart.
There is no question that if each dart hit multiple targets, they would do the same damage to every target, but they don't; each dart hits a single target and the spell creates multiple darts. However, unlike every other spell that creates multiple distinct damage effects, magic missile specifies that the darts are simultaneous. The RAI question then becomes 'why does it say that'?
The likely reason is that you're supposed to allocate missiles before resolving any of them, which spells like scorching ray do not require, but the text doesn't say. However, it's pretty clear that making it into the best single target nuke in the game when used in combination with class features such as Empowered Evocation was not intended.
Crawford had a team of individuals that collectively debated the wording of the rules, and singed off on the collective agreement of said wording. Crawford himself is not the soul author of the rules he was just another contributor and that is why WotC has stated Crawford's tweets are not Rules As Written.
So if an individual dart deals a amount of damage, and that individual darts' damage is randomly determined by rolling a d4, that would specify each dart individually does a different random amount of damage. That is very specific, and a contradiction to the general rule of p196. We all agree specific beats general do we not?
Yet as you and others have debated, by RAI ( Rules As Interpreted aka "Personal Preference" not Rules as Intended ) rather then RAW ( Rules As Written aka Rules As Worded ), a single roll is used for the damage applied to all targets when the "Each dart hits a creature of your choice that you can see within range. A dart deals 1d4 + 1 force damage to its target." specifically Written and Worded Rule of the MM spell describes the intention of how the spell works.
I am in no way trying to change anyone's mind as to how they should play the game, nor how they wish to interpret the rules. Nor am I trying to discredit or belittle their point of view on the subject.
But when someone starts to use their personal interpretation to say "No it is this way, your interpretation is incorrect", well now your trying to convince others that your personal interpretation is what the RAW is intended to do.
Even Crawford has said the Rules As Written stand on their own as to the intention of what they do generally, however everybody interprets the rules as they see fit.
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
No part of it says that the individual dart's damage is randomly determined by rolling a d4, just that the damage of a dart from the spell is determined by rolling a d4. So RAW, you roll a d4 and that's the damage from each dart. There's nothing to suggest that each dart is determined by its own d4. The language is very similar to what is used for AoE spells such as fireball "A target takes 8d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one."
RAW is 'damage to all targets is the same' (damage rolls) and 'no matter how many missiles hit a target, it only takes damage from one' (combining magical effects). Nothing in magic missile grants an exemption to either general rule. As this is obviously not RAI, people try to interpret it in a way that makes sense. The easiest fix is to eliminate 'simultaneous'.
yet you posted this:
Even you stated "All this tells us is that an individual dart does an amount of damage", which would acknowledge each dart is independent from other darts created.
If as you say "it doesn't in any way specify that the darts do different amounts of damage", why do you have to roll for damage at all? Maybe because not all darts are created equally?
Fireball: Each creature in a 20-foot-radius sphere centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw. A target takes 8d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.
very different from: Each dart hits a creature of your choice that you can see within range. A dart deals 1d4 + 1 force damage to its target.
Why? because a fireball can't multi-target the same creature the way Magic Missile allows. therefore MM is NOT an AOE spell.
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
Actually, fireball and magic missile seem like they’re written to be quite evocative of each other. It is amost so close it seems intentional. Like they took a multi-target spell and just modified it so that each dart’s target could be the same creature (and doubled down on that by making sure that the darts hit simultaneously).
And you point out that magic missile isn’t an AoE spell. Great. Just a few posts ago, I pointed out that the rule about rolling damage for multi-target spells doesn’t care at all whether a spell is an area spell.
Also, unless you're talking about those recent posts (which apparently you didn't read, otherwise you'd know that dice don't depend on area), you're judging my current position on text I wrote over a year and a half ago. I couldn't tell you what I wrote on this topic then.
Acknowledging that multiple darts exist and that they each do damage is not an acknowledgement that the damage dealt is independent of one another. It is both possible and intended by design that the darts are copies of each other.
Further, Jeremy Crawford's rules were considered official at the time he had addressed the question of magic missile. Additionally, the decision to rule his tweets as no longer official was not made without JC's input; he specifically stated that he did not wish for people to crawl through his tweets to find clarification on rules, not that his judgement is suspect. Lastly, even if his posts are not RAW as of 2019, they are still and have always been rules as intended.
The linguistic gymnastics are purely academic - The RAW offered by WotC does not state to roll damage for each dart, and the advice offered by the Principle Rule Designer of 5e has been provided and is consistent with RAW. However, if you wish to roll multiple times when casting MM, you can certainly do so if your DM permits it.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
If that is so, again why even have the sentence "Each dart hits a creature of your choice that you can see within range."? That seems pretty specific wording meaning 'damage to all targets is not / would not be the same' even if you use a one roll for all darts created and would be the exemption to the general damage rolls rule. It is the same as trying to shove a 5 inch square peg into a 4 inch round hole, after all is said and done the effect is to destroy the specific to fit the general.
True the intended design might have been that all darts of the Magic Missile are copies of each other, yet the rules designers choose to specifically use wording as RAW that allows each dart to randomly have a different damage value than any other dart. If the intent was to have all darts do the exact same amount of damage, they would not refer to the dart in the singular when defining the damage the dart does, and would have long since close the debate on whether one rolls each dart separately or as a whole.
As for JC and his tweets, they were never official. It was only after WotC received so many complaints and questions asking if JC's tweets were actual RAW that both Wotc and JC came to an agreement. JC would formally submit his tweets to WotC for review and revision to publish what is now the SAC, WotC in return wouldn't pursue JC legally. Ever notice how the MM tweet is nowhere to be found in any official publication? That's because that specific tweet contradicts the official published RAW of the Magic Missile spell, and JC alone does not have the ability nor the right to do so without WotC review and approval. JC's tweets are not Rules As Intended, never have been or ever will be, they are just his interpretation of what the rules are.
The RAW offered by WotC concerning Magic Missile does clearly state damage per missile is a random d4 roll. "A dart does 1d4+1 force damage to it's target" is smack dab in the center of the spell's description, and as I posted earlier, the English language used in defining and describing the spell references the dart in the singular vernacular. That makes JC's tweet inconsistent with WotC official RAW, and his advice purely interpretation of how he handles the spell.
As far as whether one wishes to roll multiple times or once is the player/casters prerogative, and any decent DM would advise the player as to which method is preferred rather than tell you it has to be roll their specific way. As a player and a DM, I roll/allow the player to decide which they prefer, understanding in full what the official RAW and intent of the Magic Missile spell is.
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
Magic Missile hasn't got any RAW for what happens when you hit multiple targets for different numbers of darts each, unless you mean you understand that the RAW is unavailable. All we have are the rules for hitting any number of targets T for the same number of darts each, and said rules change depending on whether T=1 or T>1.
Because the intent of the spell is not the same as what they actually wrote.
Magic Missile spell does have RAW for what happens when you multi-target creatures with different numbers of darts.
SO, example time:
a wizard stands 50 feet from two goblins and 70 feet from a hobgoblin. The wizard cast MM at level 6 and creates 8 darts. the wizards then directs the first dart to hit the goblin on the left, the second dart to the goblin to the right, the third dart to the hobgoblin, the fourth dart to the goblin to the right, the fifth dart to the hobgoblin, the sixth dart to that goblin on the right again because it's an ugly sucker, and the seventh and eighth dart to the hobgoblin as he hurts so good.
What do we have so far? Left goblin = 1 dart , right goblin = 3 darts , hobgoblin = 4 darts.
darts rolled independently: dart#1 - 2 , dart#2 - 5 , dart#3 - 3 , dart#4 - 5, dart#5 - 4 , dart#6 - 5 , dart#7 - 2 , dart#8 - 4
Result: left goblin - 1 dart to hit ; 2 points of damage(hurt) , right goblin - 3 darts to hit ; 15 points of total damage ( Dead ) , Hobgoblin - 4 darts to hit ; 13 points of total damage ( seems ticked and hurt ) [ all darts hit their respective targets at the same time ]
In the end what is the final result: MM spell casted and used per RAW and RAI. [ and that right goblin got toasted ]
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
https://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/DND/SA-Compendium.pdf
"Official rulings on how to interpret unclear rules are made in Sage Advice. The public statements of the D&D team, or anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice. One exception: the game’s rules manager, Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford), can make official rulings and usually does so in Sage Advice and on Twitter."
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1105277917582389248
"As of the January edition of the Sage Advice Compendium PDF, my tweets aren't official rulings. I don't want people having to sift through my tweets for official rules calls."
This is perfectly clear. The why followed the what. There was no internal battle where JC needed to be put on a leash. If you can be wrong on this matter, is it really so hard to believe that you could also be wrong on other specific issues?
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Nothing in your quoted sentence says anything about the damage of each dart. That pretty specific wording does not mention anything at all about damage.
You should update your reference : https://media.wizards.com/2020/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf
"The public statements of the D&D team, or anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice. The tweets of Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford), the game’s principal rules designer, are sometimes a preview of rulings that appear here."
They changed their tune in regards to JC's use of twitter to make official rulings outside WotC's review.
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
Might want to jump back about 100 post, read all that was offered, then feel free to PM me.
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
Oh dear, you are confused. I am not saying that JC's tweets are currently official rulings. In fact, if you read my post again, you will note that I stated that since the tweet in 2019 (which predates your 2020 SA Compendium), that they are no longer official rulings. The reason for the links was to show you that the tweets were at one time, official rulings. I am astounded you made this post since the posts that came before where on whether JC's tweets were ever official rulings.
But you don't have to take my post at face value, the evidence is in this very post pyramid. See above... or below. Whichever you prefer.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
JC's tweet : https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1105277917582389248
As of the January edition of the Sage Advice Compendium PDF, my tweets aren't official rulings. I don't want people having to sift through my tweets for official rules calls. My tweets will preview official rulings in the compendium. And remember, the DM has the final say.
Which means when the 2019 SAC came out, all of his tweets lost any official creditability in being deemed RAW and RAI.
He knew he overstepped with the 2018 Magic Missile tweet, and WotC made that clear with the very same statement in the beginning of the 2019 SAC that is the very same as the 2020 SAC.
So, no not confused what-so-ever. JC stuck his head out, and was lucky it didn't get chopped off. His 2018 Magic Missile tweet is unofficial and therefore NOT RAW.
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
Again, you are confused. He is simply stating that while at one time they were official rulings (like when answering questions on MM), and that now they no longer are. That is not really material though, since the issue was that you stated that his tweets were never official, which is demonstrably wrong.
But, I can see that finding correct answers is secondary to your compulsive need to be perceived as right, so I am going to leave this discussion as I have already provided evidence that you are incorrect. Nothing of value can be found in an extended conversation with you. Good luck with... whatever this is.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Hey, your entitled to your opinion. JC in that tweet never said his former tweets were official, just that as of January 2019 SAC those tweets had to be considered unofficial and therefore by both himself and WotC standards were never official. Only when those tweets became official SAC printed content did the tweets regain any creditability.
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.