This thread showed up in my notifications again, so I came to see what was added. Wow, that's a wall of text. Let me preface what I'm about to say by mentioning that I've already stated that it doesn't really matter if you roll per dart or once, but more dice is more fun, though I concede that the rules indicate otherwise.
That is a lot of text that is irrelevant. When you finally do get to the relevant rule, you just say it is dumb without any justification of why one spell that deals its damage at one time should be treated differently than another except for your invented assertion that the rule is "for area of effect spells that have a single roll" and shouldn't count for anything else. But that simply isn't how the relevant rule is written. It is all your assertion with no support.
First: Yes, it is a wall of text. It is meant to be, thus the facetious nature of the post.
Second: I did explain the reasoning behind the rule on page 196 of the Player’s Handbook, but lets look at the post again, shall we?
The PHB states: “If a spell or other effect deals damage to more than one target at the same time, roll the damage once for all of them. For example, when a wizard casts fireballor a cleric casts flame strike, the spell's damage is rolled once for all creatures caught in the blast.”
I stated: “on page 196 of the Player’s Handbook. “If a spell or other effect deals damage to more than one target at the same time, roll the damage once for all of them.” The argument of is it (1d4+1)x (x being the number of darts), or is it xd4+x is dumb. One method or another does not really speed things up. The end result is the damage from a single dart is 2-5 damage. PERIOD. This rule is in place to speed up gameplay for area of effect spells that have a single roll but the damage is applied equally to all targets inside the area like fireball or mass healing word.”.
So yes, point of fact, I did explain the reasoning behind it. To simplify and speed up play of game. It can be argued that I also stated the rule is also to ensure even damage dealt to multiple targets of a single spell, but again, that point is irrelevant due to the nature of the game and all rules are, to quote Captain Barbossa, more like guidelines than rules. In other words, everyone can and most certainly do play the game differently.
In regards to my quote about, as you put it “the relevant rule, you just say it is dumb without any justification of why”, look again. I never said the rule is dumb, I stated that the argument on which die pool we use is. “The argument of is it (1d4+1)x (x being the number of darts), or is it xd4+x is dumb”... quoted for a third time now. As for “justification”? No, I don’t give a reasoning behind why it is “dumb” in the quote, nor should I have to. It is implied within the entire post. If a rule doesn’t work for your group, throw it out or house rule it. If you find a better way that works for you, so be it. Arguing about a rule interpretation and getting heated or personally attacking due to your perspective being different than mine is... well, dumb.
Third: “why one spell that deals its damage at one time should be treated differently than another except for your invented assertion that the rule is "for area of effect spells that have a single roll" 🤔I have addressed this... multiple times. Simply stated before, one is a spell that has its total damage dealt to all within an area of effect, the other is spell that does not affect an area, but is a single/multiple target spell that distributes its damage, thus reducing its overall pool of dice, amongst all targets. Fireball deals x damage at once to all targets. You roll 15 damage, everything inside failing a saving throw takes 15 damage. You hit two targets with Magic Missile, one target gets hit with two missiles for 2d4+2 damage. The second target getting hit with one missile does not take the same amount of damage as the first. Nothing invented by me on this, this is simple logic and basic understanding of math.
“But that simply isn't how the relevant rule is written” True. I reworded it for ease of interpretation. Not the EXACT way the relevant rule is written.
”It is all your assertion with no support”. I have provided support, but if you require more, I can break it down further and begin on a novel here in posts. Simply put, rules in the phb are there to either a: provide enjoyment, b: simplify gameplay, or c: provided a challenge. 5e has done well to remove rules that exist just to explain something just because. Your as hominem fallacy here is coming into the discussion with a predetermined outcome, and stating that one point of view is not as justified as another (though not in those EXACT words, it is what is implied). The point of view I have presented has not only merit, but also support from rules and players alike. There is a reason that WotC does not address this topic more and has made an official ruling on how it works and why. Everyone plays differently, and it is not worth the time wasted on explaining it to them. To THEM.
I realize this thread has had necromancy performed upon it, but for Mordrid's benefit if no-one else's, I'd like to explicitly point out here the problem with Magic Missile and the rule on p196; while many ways exist to point out the problem, I will use the spell itself and School of Evocation wizards.
If a spell or other effect deals damage to more than one target at the same time, roll the damage once for ali of them. -- p196
Beginning at 10th level, you can add your Intelligence modifier (minimum of +1) to one damage roll of any wizard evocation spell that you cast. -- p117
The problems are twofold. Assume the Wizard has intelligence modifier +5, for simplicity.
RAW, this means when you target a single target with magic missile, that target takes 3d4+8 damage, but when you target three targets with magic missile, each target takes 1d4+6 damage, for a total of 3d4+18. That's not intrinsically a problem, but it seems very unintended that an evoker casting magic missile would do so much more damage to 3 targets than 1.
A much bigger problem occurs when targeting 2 targets; there is no physically plausible way to obey the rules. All of the following contradict the RAW; assume the target taking 1 missile is Adam and the target taking 2 missiles is Bob:
Roll 1d4+6; Adam takes this, and Bob takes double.
Roll 2d4+7; Bob takes this, and Adam takes half, rounding down as usual.
Roll 1d4+1 and 2d4+2 separately, and the wizard can choose which one to add the +5 to.
2 is the bigger deal, because there is literally no way to obey the RAW in that situation. Note that part of the problem is that choosing between 2.1 and 2.2 is totally arbitrary, with no guidance whatsoever offered by p196.
If we only roll damage once for magic missile, then empowered evocation empowers every missile regardless of the target. Talk about maximizing your effect!
Dear god, the oft-quoted p. 196 rule clearly is intended to cover area of effect spells, not things like MM. Why Crawford wants to twist this into knots to apply to MM is beyond me. His rulings are contradictory too - on the one hand, he reads "simultaneous" as putting it in the ambit of "If a spell or other effect deals damage to more than one target at the same time, roll the damage once for all of them." However, he also treats each missile as a separate source for purposes of death and concentration saves.
Yes, ^ this is the issue right here for those who say it's a facetious argument. There are many game elements that allow for additional damage to one damage roll per round or per turn. If MM is one damage roll applied X times, then you can multiply these damage bonuses for an insane logarithmic damage increase. One of the Throwdown threads has a build that leverages this to the max, and it's doing hundreds of unmissable damage every round with MM.
For this reason alone, I don't care what RAW says - my table will always roll separately.
If we only roll damage once for magic missile, then empowered evocation empowers every missile regardless of the target. Talk about maximizing your effect!
Well, maybe. P196 only says you roll once, not what you roll once. Rolling 1 die once and then multiplying is exactly as obedient of the rule as rolling all the dice once, even though in many contexts, like the one I posted, they result in wildly different amounts of damage.
I will concede that the written rules do not explicitly cover the case of magic missile, so we have to defer to other rules that imply their application to MM. I will say that JC has indicated the intention is for a single damage roll to be enhanced on all missiles.
Dear god, the oft-quoted p. 196 rule clearly is intended to cover area of effect spells, not things like MM. Why Crawford wants to twist this into knots to apply to MM is beyond me. His rulings are contradictory too - on the one hand, he reads "simultaneous" as putting it in the ambit of "If a spell or other effect deals damage to more than one target at the same time, roll the damage once for all of them." However, he also treats each missile as a separate source for purposes of death and concentration saves.
This speaks to the fundamental paradox with magic missile. The multiple missiles target individually like many other attack spells. But since we don't make multiple attack rolls (or any for that matter), it falls into a general rule for damage that was primarily written to cover area of effect spells. I think they would have been better off just specifying that damage should be rolled for each missile. That way you would have a specific rule within the spell's description to cover just the behavior of that spell.
Yes, ^ this is the issue right here for those who say it's a facetious argument. There are many game elements that allow for additional damage to one damage roll per round or per turn. If MM is one damage roll applied X times, then you can multiply these damage bonuses for an insane logarithmic damage increase. One of the Throwdown threads has a build that leverages this to the max, and it's doing hundreds of unmissable damage every round with MM.
For this reason alone, I don't care what RAW says - my table will always roll separately.
That’s absolutely fine. I don’t argue with your logic one bit. And clearly you get that you are Houseruling against RAW because it works better for your table.
It’s the folks that refuse to acknowledge the distinction between Houseruling contra to RAW, and refusing to acknowledge RAW that I object to.
Dear god, the oft-quoted p. 196 rule clearly is intended to cover area of effect spells, not things like MM. Why Crawford wants to twist this into knots to apply to MM is beyond me.
Try to conceptualize it as if MM was an AoE with a 120 radius effect centered on the caster, but instead of hitting everyone in the area once, it has a total of X numbers of hits it can make divided anyway the caster chooses. (Only instead of writing it that way and confusing people they changed it around to the wording they ended up with.) Viewed through that lens it has a certain logic to it.
Either way MM is a very atypical spell, so both concepts kinda illicit a head scratch or two, but did that at least make sense?
Dear god, the oft-quoted p. 196 rule clearly is intended to cover area of effect spells, not things like MM. Why Crawford wants to twist this into knots to apply to MM is beyond me. His rulings are contradictory too - on the one hand, he reads "simultaneous" as putting it in the ambit of "If a spell or other effect deals damage to more than one target at the same time, roll the damage once for all of them." However, he also treats each missile as a separate source for purposes of death and concentration saves.
Oh? I'm glad that you told us that, because certainly the rule didn't.
You select a target for each missile. That necessitates that it has more than one target (the spell always has more than one missile, each with its own target).
Wonderful! Now we are getting to the root of the problem. More on that later, but first...
To Quindraco; thank you kind sir, I appreciate it. However, I need no problem pointed out to me. I have already addressed this: “Since the spell is a single source, this also applies to effects that would increase the damage, such as a wizard’s Empowered Evocation. Even in the description of said power, it states: “The damage bonus applies to one damage roll of a spell, not multiple rolls”. Some DM’s will allow this damage bonus to be applied in full to separate targets, and while that is their prerogative, it is not RAW. I would be willing to let the bonus be divided out amongst the targets up to the total bonus. RAW multiple bonus of a similar source can only be applied once, and I consider the bonus damage being dealt to all targets as an instance of this rule.”
The problem with this rule is how many times WotC would print one thing and then say another. that gets confusing. Examples with differences underlined:
Quote from old JC D&D Twitter post:
Empowered Evocation
Beginning at 10th level, you can add your Intelligence modifier (minimum of +1) to the damage roll of any wizard evocation spell that you cast. The damage bonus applies to one damage roll of a spell, not multiple rolls.
Copied from the PHB (metallic cover collectors edition with DMG, MM1, and DM screen)
Empowered Evocation Beginning at 10th level, you can add your Intelligence modifier to the damage roll of any wizard evocation spell you cast.
And finally from the D&D beyond website under Wizards:
Empowered Evocation
Beginning at 10th level, you can add your Intelligence modifier to one damage roll of any wizard evocation spell you cast.
See how one little word can change a world? also, be sure to research multiple avenues to get your facts, just because FoxNews says it’s O.K., don’t make it so. Think for yourself. 👌
Now we know the bonus is only applied to one roll as stated in last and most updated example directly from content owner and creators. That is the ruling we shall go by. A level 10, 20 INT, Evo Wizard casting magic missile with a first level slot will deal a total of 3d4+8, NOT 3d4+18.
Now this example does Segway into the main topic: Mr. Crawford’s example. While I appreciate his work on bringing 5e to life, he is not the “official rules lawyer” for D&D. He has Said so himself:
Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) Tweeted: 1. D&D has rules.
2. The DM decides how to use those rules.
3. I sometimes clarify what the rules do and do not say and share what our intent was.
4. The DM still decides how to use the rules. #DnD
He is a man and thus fallible. Like all, capable of making mistakes or misunderstanding something that has been written so many different ways that it becomes confusing. BUT, more importantly, he is not my DM. And as I have stated, if a rule sucks, throw it out. Don’t like my advice? Take it from Mr. Crawford’s tweet, line #4: The DM still decides how to use the rules. I will run it like I said. Once per spell.
That’s absolutely fine. I don’t argue with your logic one bit. And clearly you get that you are Houseruling against RAW because it works better for your table.
It’s the folks that refuse to acknowledge the distinction between Houseruling contra to RAW, and refusing to acknowledge RAW that I object to.
Dear god, the oft-quoted p. 196 rule clearly is intended to cover area of effect spells, not things like MM. Why Crawford wants to twist this into knots to apply to MM is beyond me.
Try to conceptualize it as if MM was an AoE with a 120 radius effect centered on the caster, but instead of hitting everyone in the area once, it has a total of X numbers of hits it can make divided anyway the caster chooses. (Only instead of writing it that way and confusing people they changed it around to the wording they ended up with.) Viewed through that lens it has a certain logic to it.
Either way MM is a very atypical spell, so both concepts kinda illicit a head scratch or two, but did that at least make sense?
It makes sense in that it's an argument that you can make with a straight face, but it seems like this interpretation really requires you to twist yourself up to hammer a square peg into a round hole.
Disclaimer: I'm among those who refuse to acknowledge that the "one roll" school of thought is RAW. I don't think it fits into the "multiple targets" wording of the PHB damage rules at all, and, as I pointed out, that interpretation is inconsistent with other interpretations of MM's effects on concentration and death saves.
I'm also among those who think this is a fun, if totally inconsequential, argument.
The debate between whether or not it should be a single role is a separate one from whether or not it is a single roll RAW.
Is it a single roll RAW? Yes
Should it be? Well, that’s just another way of asking if it’s “sposta be,” and I can tell you that wars have been fought over debates about what is or isn’t sposta happen. That’s why “sposta” is such a dangerous concept.
Multiple missiles, each with their own target = multiple targets.
Which of the ways to damage Adam and Bob I listed do you use at your table? I'm genuinely interested in how people are applying this rule.
At my table, we roll each missile individually. The caster would get to pick which missile gets the extra power. I have never had an evocation wizard at my table though.
Unquestionably so - but it's also impossible to answer what that single roll is. There is no specific RAW support for rolling 1 dart and multiplying it over rolling multiple darts and dividing it, even though these result in different numbers in many cases.
Unquestionably so - but it's also impossible to answer what that single roll is. There is no specific RAW support for rolling 1 dart and multiplying it over rolling multiple darts and dividing it, even though these result in different numbers in many cases.
There doesn’t need to be, you just treat it exactly like fireball you roll 1d4+1 and every dart does that. You don’t need any of that extra math whatsoever. Here:
”My character casts a 3rd-level Magic Missile, I am targeting that Hobgoblin with 3 of the darts, and each of those three Goblins with 1 dart.
Unquestionably so - but it's also impossible to answer what that single roll is. There is no specific RAW support for rolling 1 dart and multiplying it over rolling multiple darts and dividing it, even though these result in different numbers in many cases.
There doesn’t need to be, you just treat it exactly like fireball you roll 1d4+1 and every dart does that. You don’t need any of that extra math whatsoever. Here:
”My character casts a 3rd-level Magic Missile, I am targeting that Hobgoblin with 3 of the darts, and each of those three Goblins with 1 dart.
2
So that Hob just took 6 Force damage, and each of this Gobs took 2.
Edit: (Glad to see my luck at damage rolls is as predictable as ever. 🙄)
This thread showed up in my notifications again, so I came to see what was added. Wow, that's a wall of text. Let me preface what I'm about to say by mentioning that I've already stated that it doesn't really matter if you roll per dart or once, but more dice is more fun, though I concede that the rules indicate otherwise.
That is a lot of text that is irrelevant. When you finally do get to the relevant rule, you just say it is dumb without any justification of why one spell that deals its damage at one time should be treated differently than another except for your invented assertion that the rule is "for area of effect spells that have a single roll" and shouldn't count for anything else. But that simply isn't how the relevant rule is written. It is all your assertion with no support.
First: Yes, it is a wall of text. It is meant to be, thus the facetious nature of the post.
Second: I did explain the reasoning behind the rule on page 196 of the Player’s Handbook, but lets look at the post again, shall we?
The PHB states: “If a spell or other effect deals damage to more than one target at the same time, roll the damage once for all of them. For example, when a wizard casts fireballor a cleric casts flame strike, the spell's damage is rolled once for all creatures caught in the blast.”
I stated: “on page 196 of the Player’s Handbook. “If a spell or other effect deals damage to more than one target at the same time, roll the damage once for all of them.” The argument of is it (1d4+1)x (x being the number of darts), or is it xd4+x is dumb. One method or another does not really speed things up. The end result is the damage from a single dart is 2-5 damage. PERIOD. This rule is in place to speed up gameplay for area of effect spells that have a single roll but the damage is applied equally to all targets inside the area like fireball or mass healing word.”.
So yes, point of fact, I did explain the reasoning behind it. To simplify and speed up play of game. It can be argued that I also stated the rule is also to ensure even damage dealt to multiple targets of a single spell, but again, that point is irrelevant due to the nature of the game and all rules are, to quote Captain Barbossa, more like guidelines than rules. In other words, everyone can and most certainly do play the game differently.
In regards to my quote about, as you put it “the relevant rule, you just say it is dumb without any justification of why”, look again. I never said the rule is dumb, I stated that the argument on which die pool we use is. “The argument of is it (1d4+1)x (x being the number of darts), or is it xd4+x is dumb”... quoted for a third time now. As for “justification”? No, I don’t give a reasoning behind why it is “dumb” in the quote, nor should I have to. It is implied within the entire post. If a rule doesn’t work for your group, throw it out or house rule it. If you find a better way that works for you, so be it. Arguing about a rule interpretation and getting heated or personally attacking due to your perspective being different than mine is... well, dumb.
Third: “why one spell that deals its damage at one time should be treated differently than another except for your invented assertion that the rule is "for area of effect spells that have a single roll" 🤔I have addressed this... multiple times. Simply stated before, one is a spell that has its total damage dealt to all within an area of effect, the other is spell that does not affect an area, but is a single/multiple target spell that distributes its damage, thus reducing its overall pool of dice, amongst all targets. Fireball deals x damage at once to all targets. You roll 15 damage, everything inside failing a saving throw takes 15 damage. You hit two targets with Magic Missile, one target gets hit with two missiles for 2d4+2 damage. The second target getting hit with one missile does not take the same amount of damage as the first. Nothing invented by me on this, this is simple logic and basic understanding of math.
“But that simply isn't how the relevant rule is written” True. I reworded it for ease of interpretation. Not the EXACT way the relevant rule is written.
”It is all your assertion with no support”. I have provided support, but if you require more, I can break it down further and begin on a novel here in posts. Simply put, rules in the phb are there to either a: provide enjoyment, b: simplify gameplay, or c: provided a challenge. 5e has done well to remove rules that exist just to explain something just because. Your as hominem fallacy here is coming into the discussion with a predetermined outcome, and stating that one point of view is not as justified as another (though not in those EXACT words, it is what is implied). The point of view I have presented has not only merit, but also support from rules and players alike. There is a reason that WotC does not address this topic more and has made an official ruling on how it works and why. Everyone plays differently, and it is not worth the time wasted on explaining it to them. To THEM.
Lastly: Have a good day. 😁
I realize this thread has had necromancy performed upon it, but for Mordrid's benefit if no-one else's, I'd like to explicitly point out here the problem with Magic Missile and the rule on p196; while many ways exist to point out the problem, I will use the spell itself and School of Evocation wizards.
The problems are twofold. Assume the Wizard has intelligence modifier +5, for simplicity.
2 is the bigger deal, because there is literally no way to obey the RAW in that situation. Note that part of the problem is that choosing between 2.1 and 2.2 is totally arbitrary, with no guidance whatsoever offered by p196.
If we only roll damage once for magic missile, then empowered evocation empowers every missile regardless of the target. Talk about maximizing your effect!
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Dear god, the oft-quoted p. 196 rule clearly is intended to cover area of effect spells, not things like MM. Why Crawford wants to twist this into knots to apply to MM is beyond me. His rulings are contradictory too - on the one hand, he reads "simultaneous" as putting it in the ambit of "If a spell or other effect deals damage to more than one target at the same time, roll the damage once for all of them." However, he also treats each missile as a separate source for purposes of death and concentration saves.
Yes, ^ this is the issue right here for those who say it's a facetious argument. There are many game elements that allow for additional damage to one damage roll per round or per turn. If MM is one damage roll applied X times, then you can multiply these damage bonuses for an insane logarithmic damage increase. One of the Throwdown threads has a build that leverages this to the max, and it's doing hundreds of unmissable damage every round with MM.
For this reason alone, I don't care what RAW says - my table will always roll separately.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Well, maybe. P196 only says you roll once, not what you roll once. Rolling 1 die once and then multiplying is exactly as obedient of the rule as rolling all the dice once, even though in many contexts, like the one I posted, they result in wildly different amounts of damage.
I think maybe is the best we can do :)
I will concede that the written rules do not explicitly cover the case of magic missile, so we have to defer to other rules that imply their application to MM. I will say that JC has indicated the intention is for a single damage roll to be enhanced on all missiles.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
This speaks to the fundamental paradox with magic missile. The multiple missiles target individually like many other attack spells. But since we don't make multiple attack rolls (or any for that matter), it falls into a general rule for damage that was primarily written to cover area of effect spells. I think they would have been better off just specifying that damage should be rolled for each missile. That way you would have a specific rule within the spell's description to cover just the behavior of that spell.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
That’s absolutely fine. I don’t argue with your logic one bit. And clearly you get that you are Houseruling against RAW because it works better for your table.
It’s the folks that refuse to acknowledge the distinction between Houseruling contra to RAW, and refusing to acknowledge RAW that I object to.
Try to conceptualize it as if MM was an AoE with a 120 radius effect centered on the caster, but instead of hitting everyone in the area once, it has a total of X numbers of hits it can make divided anyway the caster chooses. (Only instead of writing it that way and confusing people they changed it around to the wording they ended up with.) Viewed through that lens it has a certain logic to it.
Either way MM is a very atypical spell, so both concepts kinda illicit a head scratch or two, but did that at least make sense?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Oh? I'm glad that you told us that, because certainly the rule didn't.
You select a target for each missile. That necessitates that it has more than one target (the spell always has more than one missile, each with its own target).
Wonderful! Now we are getting to the root of the problem. More on that later, but first...
To Quindraco; thank you kind sir, I appreciate it. However, I need no problem pointed out to me. I have already addressed this: “Since the spell is a single source, this also applies to effects that would increase the damage, such as a wizard’s Empowered Evocation. Even in the description of said power, it states: “The damage bonus applies to one damage roll of a spell, not multiple rolls”. Some DM’s will allow this damage bonus to be applied in full to separate targets, and while that is their prerogative, it is not RAW. I would be willing to let the bonus be divided out amongst the targets up to the total bonus. RAW multiple bonus of a similar source can only be applied once, and I consider the bonus damage being dealt to all targets as an instance of this rule.”
The problem with this rule is how many times WotC would print one thing and then say another. that gets confusing. Examples with differences underlined:
Quote from old JC D&D Twitter post:
Empowered Evocation
Beginning at 10th level, you can add your Intelligence modifier (minimum of +1) to the damage roll of any wizard evocation spell that you cast. The damage bonus applies to one damage roll of a spell, not multiple rolls.
Copied from the PHB (metallic cover collectors edition with DMG, MM1, and DM screen)
Empowered Evocation
Beginning at 10th level, you can add your Intelligence modifier to the damage roll of any wizard evocation spell you cast.
And finally from the D&D beyond website under Wizards:
Empowered Evocation
Beginning at 10th level, you can add your Intelligence modifier to one damage roll of any wizard evocation spell you cast.
See how one little word can change a world?
also, be sure to research multiple avenues to get your facts, just because FoxNews says it’s O.K., don’t make it so. Think for yourself. 👌
Now we know the bonus is only applied to one roll as stated in last and most updated example directly from content owner and creators. That is the ruling we shall go by. A level 10, 20 INT, Evo Wizard casting magic missile with a first level slot will deal a total of 3d4+8, NOT 3d4+18.
Now this example does Segway into the main topic: Mr. Crawford’s example. While I appreciate his work on bringing 5e to life, he is not the “official rules lawyer” for D&D. He has Said so himself:
Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) Tweeted:
1. D&D has rules.
2. The DM decides how to use those rules.
3. I sometimes clarify what the rules do and do not say and share what our intent was.
4. The DM still decides how to use the rules. #DnD
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1005501770158624768?s=20
He is a man and thus fallible. Like all, capable of making mistakes or misunderstanding something that has been written so many different ways that it becomes confusing. BUT, more importantly, he is not my DM. And as I have stated, if a rule sucks, throw it out. Don’t like my advice? Take it from Mr. Crawford’s tweet, line #4: The DM still decides how to use the rules. I will run it like I said. Once per spell.
BUT HEY! You do you!
#Peace Out, signed: The Agent of Chaos.
It makes sense in that it's an argument that you can make with a straight face, but it seems like this interpretation really requires you to twist yourself up to hammer a square peg into a round hole.
Disclaimer: I'm among those who refuse to acknowledge that the "one roll" school of thought is RAW. I don't think it fits into the "multiple targets" wording of the PHB damage rules at all, and, as I pointed out, that interpretation is inconsistent with other interpretations of MM's effects on concentration and death saves.
I'm also among those who think this is a fun, if totally inconsequential, argument.
Multiple missiles, each with their own target = multiple targets.
Although I'm on the other side, I agree with the quoted part.
Which of the ways to damage Adam and Bob I listed do you use at your table? I'm genuinely interested in how people are applying this rule.
The debate between whether or not it should be a single role is a separate one from whether or not it is a single roll RAW.
Is it a single roll RAW? Yes
Should it be? Well, that’s just another way of asking if it’s “sposta be,” and I can tell you that wars have been fought over debates about what is or isn’t sposta happen. That’s why “sposta” is such a dangerous concept.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
At my table, we roll each missile individually. The caster would get to pick which missile gets the extra power. I have never had an evocation wizard at my table though.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Unquestionably so - but it's also impossible to answer what that single roll is. There is no specific RAW support for rolling 1 dart and multiplying it over rolling multiple darts and dividing it, even though these result in different numbers in many cases.
There doesn’t need to be, you just treat it exactly like fireball you roll 1d4+1 and every dart does that. You don’t need any of that extra math whatsoever. Here:
”My character casts a 3rd-level Magic Missile, I am targeting that Hobgoblin with 3 of the darts, and each of those three Goblins with 1 dart.
5
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
So that Hob just took 6 Force damage, and each of this Gobs took 2.
Edit: (Glad to see my luck at damage rolls is as predictable as ever. 🙄)
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting