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
Ok, so you roll once and multiply. That's fine, but bear in mind you have no RAW backing for doing it this way over that one roll being 3 or 6 darts and then dividing. Fireball has no concept of multiplying or dividing, so there's no way to just port the rule over - Magic Missile works absolutely nothing like Fireball.
All of the following (assuming an Int 20 L10 Evoker) would obey page 196 in your situation, but I strongly disapprove of using numbers that are not relatively prime - they fail to showcase the problems with the rules:
Do what you did: roll for a Goblin, and the Hob takes triple. Every missile has +5 attached to it.
Roll for the Hob, and the Gobs take a third. Every Gob missile has about +5/3 applied to it, but DnD rounding will get weird. The Hob takes +5.
Roll all 6 darts as one roll. The Hob takes half and each Gob takes a sixth. The Hob missile pack has +5/2 attached to the whole pack and the Gob missiles +5/6, but DnD rounding will get even weirder than in 2.
That's what I mean when I say page 196 provides no guidance. There's no way to faithfully obey the RAW, and picking a way will often result in wildly distinct amounts of damage.
This is a 6 page thread on a problem that has a one sentence answer: "Yes, RAW suggests something that is kinda dumb, so we do whatever our group feels like."
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
Ok, so you roll once and multiply. That's fine, but bear in mind you have no RAW backing for doing it this way over that one roll being 3 or 6 darts and then dividing. Fireball has no concept of multiplying or dividing, so there's no way to just port the rule over - Magic Missile works absolutely nothing like Fireball.
All of the following (assuming an Int 20 L10 Evoker) would obey page 196 in your situation, but I strongly disapprove of using numbers that are not relatively prime - they fail to showcase the problems with the rules:
Do what you did: roll for a Goblin, and the Hob takes triple. Every missile has +5 attached to it.
Roll for the Hob, and the Gobs take a third. Every Gob missile has about +5/3 applied to it, but DnD rounding will get weird. The Hob takes +5.
Roll all 6 darts as one roll. The Hob takes half and each Gob takes a sixth. The Hob missile pack has +5/2 attached to the whole pack and the Gob missiles +5/6, but DnD rounding will get even weirder than in 2.
That's what I mean when I say page 196 provides no guidance. There's no way to faithfully obey the RAW, and picking a way will often result in wildly distinct amounts of damage.
What the eff are you talking about?!? There is no effing multiplication and no effing division taking place whatsoever. If I roll a 2 then each dart does 2 damage. Period. Why? Because 2*1=2
You’re “multiplying” because 3 darts hit one target and blahblahblah is irrelevant. It is in fact just like ******* fireball because each ******* target takes 2 ******* damage. It just so happens that in this case the one creature was targeted 3 times. In this case, 1 creature counts as 3 targets. You are making this so much more ******* complicated than it needs to be.
You don’t “roll for the Gob and triple it for the Hob,” nor do you “roll for the Hob and divide for the Gobs.” You roll for the Darts, and whoever the dart hits is a target. If a creature gets hit with one Dart. It counts as 1 target. If a creature gets hit with 3 Darts, it counts as three targets. That’s it.
What the eff are you talking about?!? There is no effing multiplication and no effing division taking place whatsoever. If I roll a 2 then each dart does 2 damage. Period. Why? Because 2*1=2
You’re “multiplying” because 3 darts hit one target and blahblahblah is irrelevant. It is in fact just like ****ing fireball because each ****ing target takes 2 ****ing damage. It just so happens that in this case the one creature was targeted 3 times. In this case, 1 creature counts as 3 targets. You are making this so much more ****ing complicated than it needs to be.
You don’t “roll for the Gob and triple it for the Hob,” nor do you “roll for the Hob and divide for the Gobs.” You roll for the Darts, and whoever the dart hits is a target. If a creature gets hit with one Dart. It counts as 1 target. If a creature gets hit with 3 Darts, it counts as three targets. That’s it.
Sure, I'll rephrase.
Page 196 does not say to roll for one dart. It says to roll once. There is no RAW backing for rolling once for one dart over rolling once for all of the darts over rolling once for the max darts actually hitting the target over any other algorithm you can think of. All it says to do is roll once. Assuming you roll once for one dart is a house rule.
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 fireball or a cleric casts flame strike, the spell's damage is rolled once for all creatures caught in the blast.
You create three glowing darts of magical force. Each dart hits a creature of your choice that you can see within range. A dart deals 1d4 + 1 force damage to its target. The darts all strike simultaneously, and you can direct them to hit one creature or several.
At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 2nd level or higher, the spell creates one more dart for each slot level above 1st.
So again, page 196 doesn’t have to say it, Magic Missile does. It explicitly states that whoever the **** the dart hits is its target. If you cast Magic Missile as a 1st-level spell, it creates 3 darts, and each dart targets a creature.
The rules for rolling damage state that you roll once and each target takes the same damage.
The fact that a single creature can be targeted multiple times with this spell is irrelevant. If the aforementioned Hobgoblin is hit with all three darts, woopty-friggin-do, he still counts as 3 targets as if each dart had hit a different creature.
The entire ******* point of that rule is to speed up gameplay. If a spell hits 8 “targets” simultaneously, then instead of everyone slowly dying of old age while one player rolls the same ******* dice 8 times and then there’s different numbers and confusion and **** that noise. You roll once and do the same damage to all targets. What’s that you say? Only 3 targets this time? “ORDER UP!” You got hit? Yes? You’re a target. You too? Targeted. And you? Booyow, there and out. Easy peasy lemon squeezy hit ‘em hard and make it sleazy.
The fact that the same creature was all three targets is completely, totally, and utterly irrelevant, it still counts as 3 targets. So “you roll once” per target, all three targets “take the same damage,” and if applicable all three targets have to make Concentration checks. And if one creature just so happy to be all three targets then they just had a bad day. Shouldn’t have ****ed with me.
Stop thinking of each creature as a target realize that whoever gets hit as a target, and that this one spell is unique in that it can target the same creature multiple times, therefore making it count as multiple targets.
Stop thinking of each creature as a target realize that whoever gets hit as a target, and that this one spell is unique in that it can target the same creature multiple times, therefore making it count as multiple targets.
Nope. "You can direct them at a single target ..." is explicitly saying that directing them all at a single target is... a single target.
@ Sposta: Wow, harshness dude. Pump them brakes. No need to get violent or attack quindraco. Sarcasm is fine, but not rude behavior. I have already explained why the spell hits simultaneously as it does, and the backup from sage advice and WotC.
To further the point, what quin is saying is correct. “Page 196 does not say to roll for one dart. It says to roll once.” The spell states A dart deals 1d4 + 1 force damage to its target, It does not say roll only for one dart. You roll all the darts dice at once. Lets use Erdrich Blast as an example, the spell states that the spell creates more than one beam when you reach higher levels: two beams at 5th level, three beams at 11th level, and four beams at 17th level. You can direct the beams at the same target or at different ones. Make a separate attack roll for each beam.
By the rule definition, since the spell does not say they hit simultaneously specifically, but they are cast and resolved at the same time, the action of a player’s turn, fulfilling the prerequisite of “If a spell or other effect deals damage to more than one target at the same time”. The rules for actions in combat state casting the spell uses the action, and unless it is a long cast, it goes off on that same action. If interrupted, the entire spell is wasted, so no bolts hit. Does this mean I only roll once for my multiple blasts damage? No. Even Mike Mearls has stated when asked “Are Eldritch Blast bolts simultaneous or sequential? Pick targets when cast or as each bolt is resolved?”, his response was: “pick when cast, resolve all at once”. He does not address wether they are simultaneous or sequential, but does state that counterspell counters all of the bolts. A single casting using one action that resolves all at once. Multiple targets hit, roll damage for each bolt. Simple. Further, you also indicate that multiple darts hitting the same target falls under the same rule. Could be argued, due to multiple instance of target options, but devil’s advocate: it is only one target still, and cannot be resolved that way using multiple targets rule.
Look, if you interpret the ruling as you only roll one die, and thus want to only roll for one dart, your prerogative. Most old school players that have been playing since before it became Advanced In the early 80’s, like myself and many others, will continue to roll for each dart. Reasoning: Most people who play and read the combination of rules do not come away with the same interpretation, also, if we roll a crappy 1 on the d4, we are not stuck with minimum damage (all ones by your interpretation) from a spell slot resource.
Regardless, you play as you, we will play as we do in our games. And again, all sarcasm and snide remarks are fine, but the rudeness isn't called for. We are a community of gamers, and debating is good for problem solving, but animosity does not solve anything.
Wow, harshness dude. Pump them brakes. No need to get violent or attack quindraco. Sarcasm is fine, but not rude behavior.
Two things:
None of that was an attack. If you think that was me “attacking,” then you have obviously never actually seen that happen before.
Whith them just repeating the same thing over and over like that and not actually debating in good faith, yea, I got rude. I do that when I suspect someone is intentionally trolling me.
This isn’t a debate about how I play vs how you play. No offense, but I don’t give a crap how you choose to rule on things at your table because I will likely never be sitting at your table, nor you at mine. This is about RAW. If you split up your targets for Magic Missile and roll all the dice together then how do you know which die was for which dart? You can’t and end up with that gobbledegook of convoluted nonsense that whatshisnuts was spouting. The entire point of the ruling on page whatever is to streamline things and prevent that nonsense. The whole point of it is to make it so that you roll once and it easy, simple, and clear and the DM can keep combat going because the most tedious and time consuming part of the game is combat, and there are likely 3-5 other people all patiently waiting to take their turns too. So, which of the following is the fastest?
Roll individually for each separate creature to keep things straight in regards to which dart hit which creature.
Roll a pile of dice and then do a bunch of math to come up with the most convoluted solution possible.
We are not trolling, having a debate on rules interpretation. Written by humans, and thus can be misconstrued. That is why we are presenting evidence on behalf, to help in understanding of our point of view.
I have been attacked before, and yes it was rude. I did not say I was attacked, and your comments do not bother me. I am a tough cookie. I am clearly stating that that kind of behavior is not called for in a public forum with possible minors present. We can be sarcastic or a little snide, but harshness, no. We have no way of knowing how quin would take that reaction, and thus it is better to err on side of caution.
Stop thinking of each creature as a target realize that whoever gets hit as a target, and that this one spell is unique in that it can target the same creature multiple times, therefore making it count as multiple targets.
Nope. "You can direct them at a single target ..." is explicitly saying that directing them all at a single target is... a single target.
Nope. It explicitly says the exact opposite:
You create three glowing darts of magical force. Each dart hits a creature of your choice that you can see within range. A dart deals 1d4 + 1 force damage to its target. The darts all strike simultaneously, and you can direct them to hit one creature or several.
“A dart deals 1d4+1 force damage to its target.” So whatever the dart hits is that dart’s target.
”and you can direct them to hit one creature or several.” It doesn’t say “a single target” at all. It says “one creature.” That clearly indicates that one creature still counts as multiple targets if it gets hit with multiple darts.
(That’s why I quoted it in my last post, so folks could see that distinction themselves.)
So, I'll try this again. For fireball, do you roll 1d6, multiply by 8 and apply it to all targets? Or do you roll 8d6 and apply the total?
Since you almost certainly do the latter, why is it different from Magic Missile? What line of RAW makes it different?
What is your answer regarding Eldritch Blast? Or for that matter, Extra Attack or Multi-attack (which are also abilities that can hit multiple targets)?
Responding to your arguments is not trolling. Nor is disagreeing with your arguments. Nor are there any personal attacks here, merely counters to your arguments.
1: We do roll the 8d6. Not just RAW, but rolling dice is fun and the chance we get big numbers heightens the excitement in a grueling combat. What combat is better I wonder? The one where the player just rolls a d6 and multiplies it by 8, nuking everything in the aoe on a lucky roll of a 6, or the combat where the enemies are swarming and the party is looking to the Wizard to pull them out of a pinch, holding their breath as he calculates the damage? The later I’d wager.
2&3: The difference is in the spell. A dart not all darts deal 1d4+1 damage. A= singular, individual. The base spell grants three of them. Each dealing 1d4+1 damage per hit. Weight of comparison: A long sword deals 1d8 damage base per hit. Would you only roll once and that is all your sword damage for all hits for that turn? A fireball deals 8d6 and hits all targets in the area of effect once.
The ruling I said before “The darts all strike simultaneously”. The darts strike simultaneously, not one at a time. This means the strikes count as a single source of damage for things like resistance (for individuals that reduce damage per hit, the damage is only reduced for the total of damage taken, not per dart), and that 3 magic missiles striking a character at 0 HP does not count as 3 failed death saves. A concentrating spellcaster hit by multiple missiles makes one Constitution save against a difficulty class set by the volley’s total damage, not each hit.” as stated in sage advice, and makes since for the low damage. Prevents a player from rolling 3+ concentration checks from an automatically hitting attack. The reverse side of multiple attacks and Erdrich Blast is simply that those spells have a chance of missing. An attack roll is needed.
4: I appreciate it! Conversation is good for the soul they say, and I firmly believe that only by understanding another’s point of view can we truly become closer as a community, even if we do not agree with said point of view.
Now I understand some people like Brussel Sprouts, I however hate them. And everyone who likes them is wrong. 😜 Now that IS me trolling.
2&3: The rules in the PHB for concentration state: Taking damage. Whenever you take damage while you are concentrating on a spell, you must make a Constitution saving throw to maintain your concentration. The DC equals 10 or half the damage you take, whichever number is higher. If you take damage from multiple sources, such as an arrow and a dragon’s breath, you make a separate saving throw for each source of damage.
Now what makes it different is a sage advice article that states “The missiles in a Magic Missile strike simultaneously. This means the strikes count as a single source of damage for things like resistance and that 3 magic missiles striking a character at 0 HP does not count as 3 failed death saves. Your wizard must decide which missiles will hit which targets before you start tallying damage”.
Further, Jeremy Crawford has tweeted the following:
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.
Essentially, JC is saying resort to Sage Advice, don’t sort through all his tweets or quote him as they are no longer official rulings.
The problem is, with so many things getting errata or clarification, sifting through it all can be a hassle, and so many just resort to posting on D&D beyond forums to ask a question. While many can and do answer the questions, few however take the time to research the “correct” answer. They answer what they think, feel, believe, or understand what is correct. However this is rarely the case. In journalism, you are usually required to cite your sources to verify the validity of your answer. This is called Attribution.
“In short, Attribution is the difference between research and plagiarism. Attribution gives stories credibility and perspective. It tells readers how we know what we know. Effective use of attribution is a matter both of journalism ethics and of strong writing. Attribution is a key ingredient in any story’s credibility. Readers are entitled to know where we got our information....If we don’t attribute our information, readers rightly wonder how we know that." - Steve Buttry
At the end, how you play the game is correct if your group enjoys it.
We are not trolling, having a debate on rules interpretation. Written by humans, and thus can be misconstrued. That is why we are presenting evidence on behalf, to help in understanding of our point of view.
I have been attacked before, and yes it was rude. I did not say I was attacked, and your comments do not bother me. I am a tough cookie. I am clearly stating that that kind of behavior is not called for in a public forum with possible minors present. We can be sarcastic or a little snide, but harshness, no. We have no way of knowing how quin would take that reaction, and thus it is better to err on side of caution.
You say you are “presenting evidence.”
Quoting something, commenting on its contents and omissions, and the making an argument based on that Is undoubtedly “presenting evidence” and I’ll throw in “composing a reasoned argument based on evidence,” just to give credit where due.
After one’s evidence has been countered with additional evidence, and one’s argument therefore effectively rebutted; to then responding by quoting the exact same thing again, and making the exact same argument, only reworded is just foolish.
Doing it again but openly saying that your just going to rephrase and rehash the same thing that doesn’t matter.... Dude* seriously? Now you’re** just pissing me off. *(I use dude as a gender neutral form term.) **(I don’t mean you specially, that isn’t meant as the 2nd person form of address nor as an attack, it is a figure of speech, at least in my part the world.)
Doing it againagain... I’ma tell you right now, if they had I was going to report them for harassment. No joke.
Yes, by that point I just wanted say “go away” so hard you have no idea. However that would actually have been a breach in forum guidelines, so instead I tried being as unpleasant as I could without breaking any rules hopping that might work so I would’t have to report them and get a Mod involved.
Please allow me to counter and rebut once more:
As to the paragraph quoted on the page referenced by the other party:
I agree that it is currently RAW, that it is accurate, and that it can be found at the location stated. None of that is in dispute. We agree as to the contents and exclusions listed. I am completely happy to concede on all points. I will resist it here for convenience, as well as provide a link to the digital version of that same evidence, and include the location given by the other party for completeness, as well as another location where it can be found.
Exerpt from the “Damage and Healing” section of the rules.
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 fireball or a cleric casts flame strike, the spell's damage is rolled once for all creatures caught in the blast.
As to the arguments made by the other party:
The other party has pointed out (repeatedly), that the evidence he presented does not include one crucial piece of information. That while the evidence he submitted says to “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.” but does not say what specifically gets rolled. I accept and agree that it is true. I concede the point.
As the other party hasn’t introduced any additional evidence, nor made any additional arguments, I will accept that they have rested their case, and take the floor:
I Would also like to submit additional evidence at this time. Digital and physical locations will be included for all evidence to the best of my ability.
You create three glowing darts of magical force. Each dart hits a creature of your choice that you can see within range. A dart deals 1d4 + 1 force damage to its target. The darts all strike simultaneously, and you can direct them to hit one creature or several.
At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 2nd level or higher, the spell creates one more dart for each slot level above 1st.
Please allow me to present another relevant section of the rules:
This book contains rules, especially in parts 2 and 3, that govern how the game plays. That said, many racial traits, class features, spells, magic items, monster abilities, and other game elements break the general rules in some way, creating an exception to how the rest of the game works. Remember this: If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins.
Exceptions to the rules are often minor. For instance, many adventurers don’t have proficiency with longbows, but every wood elf does because of a racial trait. That trait creates a minor exception in the game. Other examples of rule-breaking are more conspicuous. For instance, an adventurer can’t normally pass through walls, but some spells make that possible. Magic accounts for most of the major exceptions to the rules.
(Hopefully all parties can agree what those all say and where they can bel located so nobody has to keep throwing page numbers in each other’s avatar’s proverbial faces. Yeah maybe? 🙄)
Premis:
As one can clearly see for themselves in the piece of evidence labeled “Specific bets General,” whenever a specific rule Anya specific thing runs contra to a general rule, that the specific rules takes precedence.
And one single spell is obviously more specific than an excerpt from the combat chapter.
(Hopefully we can all agree on that too, right? Yeah maybe?)
My first rebuttal point:
Whatever that excerpt from the combat chapter says about the situation is true, except for the parts Magic Missile contradicts because in those cases whatever Magic Missile says is true.
My second rebuttal point:
“I cast Magic Missile, I create three glowing darts of magical force. Each dart hits a creature of my choice that I can see within range. A dart deals 5 force damage to its target. The darts all strike simultaneously, and I can direct them to hit one creature or several.“
“I cast Magic Missile again, I create three glowing darts of magical force. Each dart hits a creature of my choice that I can see within range. A dart deals 4 force damage to its target. The darts all strike simultaneously, and I can direct them to hit one creature or several.“
“I cast Magic Missile againagain, I create three glowing darts of magical force. Each dart hits a creature of my choice that I can see within range. A dart deals 2 force damage to its target. The darts all strike simultaneously, and I can direct them to hit one creature or several.“
Need I go on...?
I rest, now I aware for another rebuttal and potentially more counter evidence. But it has to be NEW or it doesn’t count.
Deciding that you only roll the damage for one dart with magic missile is not actually stated. It is an potential solution to reconcile the contradiction, but as it is not a stated resolution, it is not actually RAW.
Exactly. This is as correct as it is possible to be. Any other solution that also rolls once is also correct RAW, including rolling for the entire pile of darts and then performing division to work out how much damage a target takes.
Deciding that you only roll the damage for one dart with magic missile is not actually stated. It is an potential solution to reconcile the contradiction, but as it is not a stated resolution, it is not actually RAW.
Exactly. This is as correct as it is possible to be. Any other solution that also rolls once is also correct RAW, including rolling for the entire pile of darts and then performing division to work out how much damage a target takes.
Whether or not you can work through the logic is different than whether or not it is stated.
There are always multiple missiles.
Missiles each have a target.
Missiles hit simultaneously.
Spells that deal damage at the same time to multiple targets (note the simultaneously above) have the damage rolled once.
None of that is wrong, and there is only one conclusion you can come from those statements. I agree that it is not directly stated; you have to work through the steps. But it is all there.
None of that is wrong, and there is only one conclusion you can come from those statements. I agree that it is not directly stated; you have to work through the steps. But it is all there.
I can come up with at least three conclusions from those statements which all obey all of the RAW and lead to very different amounts of damage being dealt. And then I can go up to at least a fourth conclusion by differentiating between the GM choosing one of the three or the PC. It is simply incorrect that there is only one conclusion you can come to from those statements.
Let ME rephrase: you can only reasonably come up with one conclusion from those statements.
This whole idea of rolling a bunch of d4s and adding up all the damage then dividing it out among the targets is ludicrous.
Remember, you don't have to justify what you do as RAW. Just do whatever you want. You don't have to distort what is written to make up multiple conclusions to select the one you want to use. You just play how your group wants to play.
Ok, so you roll once and multiply. That's fine, but bear in mind you have no RAW backing for doing it this way over that one roll being 3 or 6 darts and then dividing. Fireball has no concept of multiplying or dividing, so there's no way to just port the rule over - Magic Missile works absolutely nothing like Fireball.
All of the following (assuming an Int 20 L10 Evoker) would obey page 196 in your situation, but I strongly disapprove of using numbers that are not relatively prime - they fail to showcase the problems with the rules:
That's what I mean when I say page 196 provides no guidance. There's no way to faithfully obey the RAW, and picking a way will often result in wildly distinct amounts of damage.
OK, we're just going in circles now.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Now?
This is a 6 page thread on a problem that has a one sentence answer: "Yes, RAW suggests something that is kinda dumb, so we do whatever our group feels like."
What the eff are you talking about?!? There is no effing multiplication and no effing division taking place whatsoever. If I roll a 2 then each dart does 2 damage. Period. Why? Because 2*1=2
You’re “multiplying” because 3 darts hit one target and blahblahblah is irrelevant. It is in fact just like ******* fireball because each ******* target takes 2 ******* damage. It just so happens that in this case the one creature was targeted 3 times. In this case, 1 creature counts as 3 targets. You are making this so much more ******* complicated than it needs to be.
You don’t “roll for the Gob and triple it for the Hob,” nor do you “roll for the Hob and divide for the Gobs.” You roll for the Darts, and whoever the dart hits is a target. If a creature gets hit with one Dart. It counts as 1 target. If a creature gets hit with 3 Darts, it counts as three targets. That’s it.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Sure, I'll rephrase.
Page 196 does not say to roll for one dart. It says to roll once. There is no RAW backing for rolling once for one dart over rolling once for all of the darts over rolling once for the max darts actually hitting the target over any other algorithm you can think of. All it says to do is roll once. Assuming you roll once for one dart is a house rule.
Sure, I’ll rephrase.
So again, page 196 doesn’t have to say it, Magic Missile does. It explicitly states that whoever the **** the dart hits is its target. If you cast Magic Missile as a 1st-level spell, it creates 3 darts, and each dart targets a creature.
The rules for rolling damage state that you roll once and each target takes the same damage.
The fact that a single creature can be targeted multiple times with this spell is irrelevant. If the aforementioned Hobgoblin is hit with all three darts, woopty-friggin-do, he still counts as 3 targets as if each dart had hit a different creature.
The entire ******* point of that rule is to speed up gameplay. If a spell hits 8 “targets” simultaneously, then instead of everyone slowly dying of old age while one player rolls the same ******* dice 8 times and then there’s different numbers and confusion and **** that noise. You roll once and do the same damage to all targets. What’s that you say? Only 3 targets this time? “ORDER UP!” You got hit? Yes? You’re a target. You too? Targeted. And you? Booyow, there and out. Easy peasy lemon squeezy hit ‘em hard and make it sleazy.
The fact that the same creature was all three targets is completely, totally, and utterly irrelevant, it still counts as 3 targets. So “you roll once” per target, all three targets “take the same damage,” and if applicable all three targets have to make Concentration checks. And if one creature just so happy to be all three targets then they just had a bad day. Shouldn’t have ****ed with me.
Stop thinking of each creature as a target realize that whoever gets hit as a target, and that this one spell is unique in that it can target the same creature multiple times, therefore making it count as multiple targets.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
PS- Your Evoker should get themselves a Shavarran Birch Focus and step up to the Varsity team.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Nope. "You can direct them at a single target ..." is explicitly saying that directing them all at a single target is... a single target.
@ Sposta: Wow, harshness dude. Pump them brakes. No need to get violent or attack quindraco. Sarcasm is fine, but not rude behavior. I have already explained why the spell hits simultaneously as it does, and the backup from sage advice and WotC.
To further the point, what quin is saying is correct. “Page 196 does not say to roll for one dart. It says to roll once.” The spell states A dart deals 1d4 + 1 force damage to its target, It does not say roll only for one dart. You roll all the darts dice at once. Lets use Erdrich Blast as an example, the spell states that the spell creates more than one beam when you reach higher levels: two beams at 5th level, three beams at 11th level, and four beams at 17th level. You can direct the beams at the same target or at different ones. Make a separate attack roll for each beam.
By the rule definition, since the spell does not say they hit simultaneously specifically, but they are cast and resolved at the same time, the action of a player’s turn, fulfilling the prerequisite of “If a spell or other effect deals damage to more than one target at the same time”. The rules for actions in combat state casting the spell uses the action, and unless it is a long cast, it goes off on that same action. If interrupted, the entire spell is wasted, so no bolts hit. Does this mean I only roll once for my multiple blasts damage? No. Even Mike Mearls has stated when asked “Are Eldritch Blast bolts simultaneous or sequential? Pick targets when cast or as each bolt is resolved?”, his response was: “pick when cast, resolve all at once”. He does not address wether they are simultaneous or sequential, but does state that counterspell counters all of the bolts. A single casting using one action that resolves all at once. Multiple targets hit, roll damage for each bolt. Simple. Further, you also indicate that multiple darts hitting the same target falls under the same rule. Could be argued, due to multiple instance of target options, but devil’s advocate: it is only one target still, and cannot be resolved that way using multiple targets rule.
https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/630903081530560514?s=20
Look, if you interpret the ruling as you only roll one die, and thus want to only roll for one dart, your prerogative. Most old school players that have been playing since before it became Advanced In the early 80’s, like myself and many others, will continue to roll for each dart. Reasoning: Most people who play and read the combination of rules do not come away with the same interpretation, also, if we roll a crappy 1 on the d4, we are not stuck with minimum damage (all ones by your interpretation) from a spell slot resource.
Regardless, you play as you, we will play as we do in our games. And again, all sarcasm and snide remarks are fine, but the rudeness isn't called for. We are a community of gamers, and debating is good for problem solving, but animosity does not solve anything.
Two things:
This isn’t a debate about how I play vs how you play. No offense, but I don’t give a crap how you choose to rule on things at your table because I will likely never be sitting at your table, nor you at mine. This is about RAW. If you split up your targets for Magic Missile and roll all the dice together then how do you know which die was for which dart? You can’t and end up with that gobbledegook of convoluted nonsense that whatshisnuts was spouting. The entire point of the ruling on page whatever is to streamline things and prevent that nonsense. The whole point of it is to make it so that you roll once and it easy, simple, and clear and the DM can keep combat going because the most tedious and time consuming part of the game is combat, and there are likely 3-5 other people all patiently waiting to take their turns too. So, which of the following is the fastest?
Yeah... I’m goin’ with the fast one.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
We are not trolling, having a debate on rules interpretation. Written by humans, and thus can be misconstrued. That is why we are presenting evidence on behalf, to help in understanding of our point of view.
I have been attacked before, and yes it was rude. I did not say I was attacked, and your comments do not bother me. I am a tough cookie. I am clearly stating that that kind of behavior is not called for in a public forum with possible minors present. We can be sarcastic or a little snide, but harshness, no. We have no way of knowing how quin would take that reaction, and thus it is better to err on side of caution.
Nope. It explicitly says the exact opposite:
(That’s why I quoted it in my last post, so folks could see that distinction themselves.)
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
1: We do roll the 8d6. Not just RAW, but rolling dice is fun and the chance we get big numbers heightens the excitement in a grueling combat. What combat is better I wonder? The one where the player just rolls a d6 and multiplies it by 8, nuking everything in the aoe on a lucky roll of a 6, or the combat where the enemies are swarming and the party is looking to the Wizard to pull them out of a pinch, holding their breath as he calculates the damage? The later I’d wager.
2&3: The difference is in the spell. A dart not all darts deal 1d4+1 damage. A= singular, individual. The base spell grants three of them. Each dealing 1d4+1 damage per hit. Weight of comparison: A long sword deals 1d8 damage base per hit. Would you only roll once and that is all your sword damage for all hits for that turn? A fireball deals 8d6 and hits all targets in the area of effect once.
The ruling I said before “The darts all strike simultaneously”. The darts strike simultaneously, not one at a time. This means the strikes count as a single source of damage for things like resistance (for individuals that reduce damage per hit, the damage is only reduced for the total of damage taken, not per dart), and that 3 magic missiles striking a character at 0 HP does not count as 3 failed death saves. A concentrating spellcaster hit by multiple missiles makes one Constitution save against a difficulty class set by the volley’s total damage, not each hit.” as stated in sage advice, and makes since for the low damage. Prevents a player from rolling 3+ concentration checks from an automatically hitting attack. The reverse side of multiple attacks and Erdrich Blast is simply that those spells have a chance of missing. An attack roll is needed.
4: I appreciate it! Conversation is good for the soul they say, and I firmly believe that only by understanding another’s point of view can we truly become closer as a community, even if we do not agree with said point of view.
Now I understand some people like Brussel Sprouts, I however hate them. And everyone who likes them is wrong. 😜 Now that IS me trolling.
Yes, we roll each individually. Three missiles, three targets, three rolls. Two targets, still 3 rolls for us. One target, still three rolls for us.
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/09/02/three-magic-missile/
2&3: The rules in the PHB for concentration state: Taking damage. Whenever you take damage while you are concentrating on a spell, you must make a Constitution saving throw to maintain your concentration. The DC equals 10 or half the damage you take, whichever number is higher. If you take damage from multiple sources, such as an arrow and a dragon’s breath, you make a separate saving throw for each source of damage.
Now what makes it different is a sage advice article that states “The missiles in a Magic Missile strike simultaneously. This means the strikes count as a single source of damage for things like resistance and that 3 magic missiles striking a character at 0 HP does not count as 3 failed death saves. Your wizard must decide which missiles will hit which targets before you start tallying damage”.
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/10/03/magic-missile-one-source/
Further, Jeremy Crawford has tweeted the following:
Essentially, JC is saying resort to Sage Advice, don’t sort through all his tweets or quote him as they are no longer official rulings.
The problem is, with so many things getting errata or clarification, sifting through it all can be a hassle, and so many just resort to posting on D&D beyond forums to ask a question. While many can and do answer the questions, few however take the time to research the “correct” answer. They answer what they think, feel, believe, or understand what is correct. However this is rarely the case. In journalism, you are usually required to cite your sources to verify the validity of your answer. This is called Attribution.
“In short, Attribution is the difference between research and plagiarism. Attribution gives stories credibility and perspective. It tells readers how we know what we know. Effective use of attribution is a matter both of journalism ethics and of strong writing. Attribution is a key ingredient in any story’s credibility. Readers are entitled to know where we got our information....If we don’t attribute our information, readers rightly wonder how we know that." - Steve Buttry
At the end, how you play the game is correct if your group enjoys it.
You say you are “presenting evidence.”
*(I use dude as a gender neutral form term.)
**(I don’t mean you specially, that isn’t meant as the 2nd person form of address nor as an attack, it is a figure of speech, at least in my part the world.)
Yes, by that point I just wanted say “go away” so hard you have no idea. However that would actually have been a breach in forum guidelines, so instead I tried being as unpleasant as I could without breaking any rules hopping that might work so I would’t have to report them and get a Mod involved.
Please allow me to counter and rebut once more:
As to the paragraph quoted on the page referenced by the other party:
I agree that it is currently RAW, that it is accurate, and that it can be found at the location stated. None of that is in dispute. We agree as to the contents and exclusions listed. I am completely happy to concede on all points. I will resist it here for convenience, as well as provide a link to the digital version of that same evidence, and include the location given by the other party for completeness, as well as another location where it can be found.
As to the arguments made by the other party:
The other party has pointed out (repeatedly), that the evidence he presented does not include one crucial piece of information. That while the evidence he submitted says to “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.” but does not say what specifically gets rolled. I accept and agree that it is true. I concede the point.
As the other party hasn’t introduced any additional evidence, nor made any additional arguments, I will accept that they have rested their case, and take the floor:
I Would also like to submit additional evidence at this time. Digital and physical locations will be included for all evidence to the best of my ability.
Please allow me to present the spell in question:
Please allow me to present another relevant section of the rules:
(Hopefully all parties can agree what those all say and where they can bel located so nobody has to keep throwing page numbers in each other’s avatar’s proverbial faces. Yeah maybe? 🙄)
Premis:
(Hopefully we can all agree on that too, right? Yeah maybe?)
My first rebuttal point:
Whatever that excerpt from the combat chapter says about the situation is true, except for the parts Magic Missile contradicts because in those cases whatever Magic Missile says is true.
My second rebuttal point:
I rest, now I aware for another rebuttal and potentially more counter evidence. But it has to be NEW or it doesn’t count.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Exactly. This is as correct as it is possible to be. Any other solution that also rolls once is also correct RAW, including rolling for the entire pile of darts and then performing division to work out how much damage a target takes.
Whether or not you can work through the logic is different than whether or not it is stated.
None of that is wrong, and there is only one conclusion you can come from those statements. I agree that it is not directly stated; you have to work through the steps. But it is all there.
I can come up with at least three conclusions from those statements which all obey all of the RAW and lead to very different amounts of damage being dealt. And then I can go up to at least a fourth conclusion by differentiating between the GM choosing one of the three or the PC. It is simply incorrect that there is only one conclusion you can come to from those statements.
Let ME rephrase: you can only reasonably come up with one conclusion from those statements.
This whole idea of rolling a bunch of d4s and adding up all the damage then dividing it out among the targets is ludicrous.
Remember, you don't have to justify what you do as RAW. Just do whatever you want. You don't have to distort what is written to make up multiple conclusions to select the one you want to use. You just play how your group wants to play.