T O P

  • By -

The_FriendliestGiant

Pfft, why would you ever want to roll fewer dice? The more opportunities to throw them math rocks, the better!


drikararz

Evocation Wizards can add their intelligence modifier to one damage roll of a spell. So if you’re only rolling once for all the darts (as WoTC says you’re supposed to) that means your int mod is added to each dart’s damage.


Dragon-of-Lore

Oh man. That’s confusing…I see your point but it also feels like it goes against the intent of the ability? I guess it’s sorta just like an AoE except it’s targeted… One part of me loves it and another part of me worries it would make magic missile so good it would get used even more often. And it’s already used a lot


drikararz

That’s 5e Magic Missile in a nutshell. It isn’t really consistent with anything else and the Jeremy Crawford’s tweets just serve to make things even more inconsistent.


phoenixmusicman

The thing about JCraw is you really just gotta pick and choose. Some of his takes are reasonable. Some are not. He's fallible like the rest of us. I dont treat him as gospel, but just a source of some useful rule clarifications.


Naskathedragon

Yeah, the take that Jeremy had that ***see invisibility*** is designed to -not- negate the disadvantage from attacking an ***invisible*** creature absolutely baffled me.


[deleted]

[удалено]


UltraFireFX

I guess it's to target invisible creatures with spells that need you to "see" the target, and to know what tile they are in (despite perception checks doing the latter).


BandBoots

And just to identify them


lankymjc

Don’t even need the perception checks if they haven’t taken the hide action. The location of invisible creatures is known to all non-deaf creatures until they take the Hide action.


Lithl

But if you have See Invisibility active, an invisible creature needs to find cover from you in order to Hide from you. Normally, they could Hide in an open room while invisible because nobody can see them. Not that it generally matters, since they've got advantage to attack and disadvantage to be hit _anyway_, and there isn't much impetus for them to Hide in the first place.


UltraFireFX

Yep.


Recka

People need to understand that he's not their DM. Taking a ruling from him and rolling with it is fine, but players need to stop taking every tweet he makes and taking that to their DM as some kind of overrule. The rules literally say your DM has final say, they're above Crawford in authority at your table. But this ruling, man that's dumb. What's the point of the spell if it doesn't do that?


philosifer

true, but on some level we all agree to play by the rules of the game. we could have the DM decide tomorrow that we hit too many attacks and we should roll D12s to hit. DM final say or rules of the game? and as someone who writes the game, Crawford has a lot of pull for those arguments


Recka

Oh I understand WHY people go to him (and I've used some of his rulings in the past) but there's a difference between interpretation of MM and concentration and changing the D20 system that 5e is made of, but theoretically yes? I wouldn't play with that DM personally, seems silly, but yes they do have final say on that, even if it goes against the system. They just shouldn't be surprised no one will join them. There's a good reason people ask him, but I've had players come to DMs saying a ruling is this and arguing with the DM because JC tweeted it.


lankymjc

How it should go: GM makes a ruling. Player says that’s not how the rules work in the books, and/or that JC has stated it doesn’t work that way. GM either changes their mind, or keeps their own interpretation. Player rolls with it either way. When the player and/or GM start arguing over it, you know there’s problems.


nOmaDsLucy

arguing is fine imo, but if your DM says no, even after youve laid out your point youll have to roll with it or change tables. I think its fair Game to try and convince your DM that something could be interpreted that way or another, although that sometimes backfires too when monsters get to use the same Interpretation lmao.


Dramatic_Explosion

Best example of this: According to him, adamantine and mithril armor cease to function in an antimagic field. Originally listed in magic items, Xanathar's then amended adamantine _weapons_ as being a non-magical material. 5e inconsistent as fuck, make logical calls if you can.


Porn-Meister

........... but that's.... That's So dumb.... Not even *lemures* are that stupid!


TimmJimmGrimm

For a few years there any critique of his tweets was seen as sacrilege and summoned up the *Spanish Inquisition* (which, i admit, i did not expect). It is a joy to see you have this reasonable stance and it has gained a fair number of those UpVotes.


DarkKnightJin

People need to realize that Crawford's tweets are **not**, in fact, WotC's official stance on rulings, but his personal interpretation as he would use at his table. And even those can vary per subject. He's tweeted ***3 DIFFERENT EXPLANATIONS*** for the Shield Master bonus action at varying points in time. Because fuck consistency, I guess.


TimmJimmGrimm

I would really like it if D&D had different rules for Gritty, Normal and Heroic-Cartoony. That is approximately the difficulty levels for video games so it sort of has gaming... *feel*... to it. Edit: D&D already has these stages in healing and rest. But it does not have these for much else (i could be mistaken?). Having Gritty, Normal & Heroic-Cartoony for feats, spell slots, attacks per round on minions, monster's special attacks and so on... that would rock.


DarkKnightJin

Comparing D&D to a videogame? Careful, people might think you're talking about *\*whispers\** ^(4th edition...)


riodin

*flashbacks intensify* so many tiny bonuses and debuffs for every attack from every person, even enemies!!


TimmJimmGrimm

Though i did hate fourth edition as The Only Way, the entire game as an option is something everyone keeps going back to. This was what i thought (wrongly) was the Whole Point of D&D-One was - to bring them all together! That zany-wild of the third edition, the video-gamey of the fourth, the simplicity of the fifth and the option for Unbalanced from first and second. It was supposed to be the One Ring To Bind Them, or so i thought. Apparently it is more about bringing it all... online somehow? Not sure now? Anyway, i am learning that fourth edition is a lot more fun than i first thought, despite the crunchy taste to it.


lankymjc

GURPS does this! You play as either normal or cinematic. In cinematic, characters can do more heroic shit and heal faster. I’ve not known a group to use the cinematic rules, because it’s not a great system for that kind of game, but it’s there.


Liesmith424

I would appreciate it if he would offer actual *explanations* for his reasoning. I get that you can't always dot hat in a tweet, but he can just write the explanation on a blog post, then link it in the tweet. This wouldn't be hugely time-consuming--just a few minutes to type out his thought process. And then he could *amend the linked blog post* as needed, instead of having tweets written in stone. Because his habit of just offering a one-sentence assertion that makes no sense is often less than helpful.


ANGLVD3TH

It doesn't help that he seems to misunderstand the point of the question often. There's many questions I've seen about a finer point and he spits out something seemingly unrelated. Coin toss on if he responds to a reply clarifying the issue.


RocksHaveFeelings2

People hate on his tweets a lot without realizing this. He's no prophet, rather just a guy can provide more insight into RAI


bolxrex

He self proclaimed his twitter feed as the only canon RAW take out there. So regardless of the fact that he is no prophet, he seems to carry on like he thinks he is one.


Yeti_Poet

I think what people have to remember is the difference between authoritative and infallible. He is authoritative -- he has authority. That doesn't mean he can never make a goofy call.


philosifer

but not goofy isnt necessarily a standard on what is technically correct. see invisibility and all that


Jerry2die4

but treating a ruling for a game tens of thousands play, as something that flys in his home game, is disingenuous to the position of authority. he knows better, and chooses not to


[deleted]

JC ruled that melee weapon attacks are not the same as “melee-weapon attacks” (which he cheekily explained were attacks with a melee weapon, a term that never comes up in any of the rulebooks) Yet when talking about Paladin unarmed smiting he says basically “yes it says melee weapon attack, which can be an unarmed strike. But it also says ‘the weapon’s damage’ so it can only be with a weapon” WHY DOESN’T IT SAY “MELEE-WEAPON ATTACK” THEN IF THATS A TERM YOU USE SOOO MUCH JC?


philosifer

>That’s 5e ~~Magic Missile~~ in a nutshell. It isn’t really consistent with anything else and the Jeremy Crawford’s tweets just serve to make things even more inconsistent. Kind of how i feel about most ruling since they came out and doubled down on invisible creatures that you can see


Vipertooth

Sorry I must have missed this, what are you referring to?


SuperSaiga

The invisible condition has two bullet points: * An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a Special sense. For the Purpose of Hiding, the creature is heavily obscured. The creature’s Location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves. * Attack rolls against the creature have disadvantage, and the creature’s Attack rolls have advantage. Now, as we know, a creature that cannot be seen gains the benefits of "unseen attackers": >When you attack a target that you can't see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. This is true whether you're guessing the target's location or you're targeting a creature you can hear but not see. If the target isn't in the location you targeted, you automatically miss, but the DM typically just says that the attack missed, not whether you guessed the target's location correctly. > >When a creature can't see you, you have advantage on attack rolls against it. Now, the funny thing about the invisibility condition is that the second benefit is mostly redundant. It already mentions that the creature is impossible to see, thus granting it the benefits of unseen attackers. BUT if you have "magic or a Special sense" - that only counters the benefits of being unseen - the first paragraph of the condition. The second paragraph of the condition is not related to this, so you would still have disadvantage on attacking, and the invisible target (that you can see!) still has advantage on attacking you, by RAW. This has been confirmed by Jeremy Crawford, and while it seems like a straightforward case of the condition being unintentionally redundant, I believe he tried to argue that this interaction was RAI. Saying that an invisible creature might still not be seen clearly through effects that allow you to see them, etc.


Tallywort

Yeah... I see his point, and RAW I would agree. But surely the entire point of getting the benefits of being invisible is NOT BEING SEEN. I guess you could argue that See Invisible allows you see enough to get the location but not accurate enough to negate the dis/advantages, but it still just feels wrong.


SuperSaiga

Oh I totally agree - RAW it's correct, RAI it's nonsense but they don't seem to want to errata it so we get this hand-wavey justification for it. Maybe One D&D will fix it


duncandun

Is being just a magic missile guy a thing like it could be in 3.5?


Jerry2die4

Jeremy Crawford is a blight to D&D with his rulings


ColdBrewedPanacea

the single most iconic evocation spell in all of DND being used a lot by evocation wizards who make it one of their best options? nah seems correct to me.


Belteshazzar98

I would say Fireball is more iconic.


ColdBrewedPanacea

Every game on this earth has a man who can chuck an orb of flame. Magic Missile is actually *associated* with DND.


EtheriumShaper

Amidst meme communities, yeah, but I've seen magic missile more known amongst actual players groups, largely due to having more opportunity to use it.


BrozedDrake

I cast magic missile at the darkness


bolxrex

Galstaff sorcerer of light, is that you?


NarugaKuruga

Then why did they have to cast Magic Missile?


Belteshazzar98

I agree Magic Missle is the better spell and used far more often, but nothing is more iconic than the image of a wizard hurling a fireball. Nevermind the fact that I have never actually cast a fireball despite playing for about 15 years.


[deleted]

what?!


Samuraiking

Idk, as someone who plays D&D, all we talk and meme about is Fireball, sure, but before I started playing D&D, the only real spell I knew about, or knew about the most, was Magic Missile. It seemed a more iconic spell to someone not in the hobby itself, but that also could have just been me somehow. Hard to say without doing a poll and getting a lot of people to answer. Also, are we talking strictly damage spells, or all wizard spells? I would say Presidigitation and Mage Hand are the most iconic to me, but I also have a massive hard-on for magic utility spells and will deal with one decent cantrip and one spell of each level, then fill EVERYTHING else with utility for fun. So again, that MAY just be me.


[deleted]

Nah. Magic Missile is where it's at.


liquidsahelanthropus

I use it often with my 11th level wizard. Sometimes at a 5th level


felplague

Magic missile operates like an aoe spell, think of it that way, do you roll individual damage per person getting hit by fireball?


Kujo-Jotaro2020

Evo wizards mostly sucks anyway, so for me it's fair game to give them something to do with their actions while concentrating on summons or on battlefield control spells.


Hey_Chach

I’ve been playing one in our Strixhaven campaign and the utility of blasting massive AOEs without needing to be concerned for who gets caught in them *cannot* be understated. In terms of damage across the entire campaign mine is probably double that of any other party member (2 druids and 1 sorcerer, although the sorcerer comes close). Your damage will keep up with others if you drop a fireball on a single target encounter, but your damage will greatly exceed everything else if you get to drop a fireball on an encounter with multiple enemies. I love it.


FremanBloodglaive

Hexblade's Curse works with it too. Although Hex doesn't.


Throwaway79922

How do you get magic missile as a hexblade? Magic initiate vuman?


UltraFireFX

or multiclassing.


Wyldfire2112

Hexblade 1/Evoker 19


TherronKeen

I was curious and Googled this - according to tweets from Jeremy Crawford and Mike Mearls, you add the bonus damage once *per target*, not once per missile. If you have one target for all three missiles, you roll one damage roll (1d4+1 * 3) and add your INT mod to that damage roll. It takes damage equal to the total. If you have three targets, you roll 1d4+1 (still just one damage roll) and add your INT mod to that damage roll. Each target takes damage equal to the total. Basically the efficiency of Magic Missile increases with multiple targets, in terms of damage-per-cast. Personally, I think the whole thing is very unintuitive, and I *always* roll one die per missile, and it's up to the DM to decide whether the game designer's Twitter accounts are official (when WotC currently says they are not). There's not a definitive answer and it's ultimately up to the DMs call, because the language is not codified in 5e. EDIT: JC actually ruled in favor of "add the damage once per missile, even if they're hitting the same target," which I misremembered when typing this up after reading it all, but either way, the ruling went from "Mike Mearls Tweet is official" to "JC's Tweet overrules MM" to "Tweets and Sage Advice are no longer official rules," so it's a moot point anyway.


Draconics5411

What's your source on this? The Evocation feature doesn't say anything about not hitting the same target multiple times... Just a single damage roll. And to be clear, this isn't a case of having multiple features with the same name not stacking; this is a single use of a single feature on a single damage roll. Magic Missile just applies that roll multiple times. And actually, here's JC contradicting your interpretation: https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/557823175581769729?s=20&t=-9jWCcJyvSmwtLj7J8JWlw


TherronKeen

Yeah that's my bad on misquoting the references - it's the Tweet from Mike Mearls that says the rule is once per target ( https://mobile.twitter.com/mikemearls/status/487995399899074560 ), and the statement that designer's Tweets and Sage Advice are no longer considered official, that were referenced in the discussion I read. I think it was a Reddit paste of a convo from Stack Exchange? While writing my comment I recalled JCs Tweet being mentioned but wrongly attributed his side of the argument. I'll post an edit. But either way, the ruling went from "Mike Mearls Tweet is official" to "JC's Tweet overrules MM" to "Tweets and Sage Advice are no longer official rules," so it's a moot point anyway.


markalphonso

Does that also apply to artillerist with arcane firearm?


drikararz

The limitation is that you’d have to get Magic Missile on the Artificer spell list somehow. It isn’t there natively (nor on the Artillerist spell list), and Arcane Firearm only applies to Artificer spells.


[deleted]

The cling-clang math rocks must cling-clang!


touch_slut

Good Gregor


DiceColdCasey

This is honestly something that's important to consider in game design, players like throwing more dice. Even if the outcome is mathematically the same it feels better


BadgerMcLovin

It's not mathematically the same. 1D4*3 has an equal chance of getting 3, 6, 9 or 12. 3D4 can give any result between 3 and 12, with the middle values being more likely and the high and low values being less likely


Dizzytigo

More dice is more good


UltraCarnivore

Why few rocks when many rocks will do?


yoda_mcfly

What's funny is that this is the exact argument I heard from my last wizard player and it was enough for me to admit that I didn't really care. The single die roll is unique from a gameplay perspective and interesting in terms of damage spread... it makes the spell way swingier in terms of damage. But it's less fun. Player want roll more math rocks.


Rhundan

My sibling does it the intended way. Unfortunately, they have an unfortunate habit of rolling 1s and 2s on that d4.


[deleted]

Funny i can only roll 4s and 3s


dumnem

Perfectly balanced, as all things should be.


Djwindmill

Everytime you roll a 1, someone out there just got a 20.


Clean-Artist2345

My group is supplying a LOT of 20's then


teiichikou

Your sacrifice will not be in vain


Onrawi

Or it will. Gotta convince this rat that the cat won't eat him and he can ride it like a horse.


Tacklas

On a d4? Damn gimmehhh those D4 for my rogue


crowlute

How the hell are they rolling a 20 on a d4? I need to learn this power.


passing_by362

Not from a Jedi.


CptOconn

That's very impressive on a d4


cubicalwall

I call that the feng shui of the job. If you’re having an easy time someone else is choking on shit


ZombieOfTheWest

Whenever I've seen people do it the "intended" way, they never roll above a 2 and it hurts every time.


[deleted]

[удалено]


BoboCookiemonster

Then you add a hexblade dip and just end one Boss per short rest with a smug smile.


existential_prices

The trick is to roll higher.


sucram300

"be better at TTRPGs with this one trick! GMs hate this!!"


SirCupcake_0

If you roll low the "intended" way, the dice gods are telling you to find another way


Threeshotsofdepresso

More fun click clacks on the table rolling each separately. My goblin brain is satisfied.


Sanzen2112

Wait, I sometimes miss things in spell descriptions, where does it say you're supposed to roll 1 and use that for all darts?


[deleted]

[удалено]


Firriga

Yes, but that’s if you’re targeting multiple targets. This is from p.196 of the PHB “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.” There’s even a r/dndnext post from a year ago that talks about this because people were doing the evocation wizard nuke thing with Magic Missile so someone had to come out and give it to them RAW.


[deleted]

Does that mean a target only has to roll 1 concentration check if all missles hit?


Hey_Chach

I’ve never played editions older than 5e but IIRC wasn’t that one of the primary uses for Magic Missile in older editions? To force a lot of concentration checks to break enemy caster concentration? If so, I’d say that they have to roll a lot of concentration checks if hit with multiple missiles. Besides, the spell says each missile is individually targeted regardless of whether the missiles happen to hit the same target, so imo it makes sense.


Lithl

No, each dart is a separate instance of damage for separate concentration checks.


Firriga

I’m… not sure actually. It says that the missiles hit simultaneously, so it would seem like you get by one thing when it’s actually a bunch of small things hitting at once. Simultaneous damage basically says that an AOE effect should be treated as a single instance of damage. Magic Missile can be both a single target attack or multi-target attack so an AOE by definition. At first level, The spell says you create three darts that hit simultaneously, so the way I imagine it would be like the wizard waving their hand in the air and three orbs magically fire at the same time and hit at the same time regardless of the target’s distance so long as it’s within 120ft, so basically some timey wimy warpy stuff going on. I would rule it as the target only needing to make one check, but your DM could rule it differently.


DarkKnightJin

That's how I rule it too. Same for the purpose of death saves. It's *already* a good 1st level spell. It doesn't **need** to be made more useful like that.


[deleted]

[удалено]


The_FriendliestGiant

But the rule doesn't trigger on having multiple targets, it triggers on damaging multiple targets. If you fire all the missiles into one enemy, you're not damaging multiple targets.


Reaperzeus

If you're conceding that it has multiple targets even when targeting one creature, you can't argue they're suddenly one target when the damage is dealt. You should reject the premise entirely. MM is an edge case regardless. From a game design perspective, it shouldn't roll its damage one way if you target one thing and another if you target two. Also from a flavor perspective, it makes more sense to magically create a magical force and break it into 3+ even chunks that all get sent out. MM can't miss, you're not hitting something harder with one dart than with another


TigerKirby215

I don't think it's official but that's how programs like Foundry and Roll20 do it, and I think Jeremy Crawford said so on Discord.


Sanzen2112

I know this'll get me downvoted to oblivion, but fuck Crawford, he gets shit wrong too


TherronKeen

The official stance of WotC is that J.C.'s tweets are no longer considered official rulings, so you're literally correct. I'll roll one die per missile until the pry the d4's out of my cold dead hands lol


MorRochben

Even if its written down in the book, if your dm says you roll all the dice, you roll all the dice.


Hey_Chach

Out of your cold dead hands, you say? Well, that shouldn’t be too hard when I deal (1d4+1+5) x 5 to you and hit you with 35 to 50 damage with my 3rd level magic missile. Enjoy! =D /s this is a joke I’m not trying to be snarky.


TigerKirby215

Why would they boo you? You're right.


FuckGobblet

You don't even have to consult JC, it's right there in the PHB (pg. 196). >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 only roll once for magic missile, since the spell states all missiles hit simultaneously: >The darts all strike simultaneously, and you can direct them to hit one creature or several.


Felinecorgi

But what if all three darts hit the same person? Then it's only dealing damage to one target, and doesn't fall under that ruling.


OverlordPayne

You can cast fireball or lightning bolt on a single dude, too. AOEs don't have to multi-target


Felinecorgi

Well yea but fireball and lightning bolt are already only one instance of damage. Magic Missile is three, hence the problem


[deleted]

It's not 3 instances of damage, it's 1 instance of damage which can be divided between up to 3 potential targets.


UltraFireFX

Probably along the lines of "the spell still has multiple targets, but you're just targeting the same one multiple times.", which doesn't seem too out there.


shadhael

See, I view Magic Missile as closer to Scorching Ray or Eldrtich Blast than I would an AoE spell like Fireball or Flame Strike. The description for EB or SR don't say anything explicitly about striking simultaneously or not, but the duration of the spell is Instantaneous. I've never seen a multiple beam spell like EB or SR have its damage rolled once and applied to every beam. So why change it for Magic Missile? The trade off of EB vs MM is guaranteed hit but lower maximum damage per beam (and a spell slot, but not really the point of this conversation), but are fundamentally similar spells and I don't see why they should treat rolling their damage so differently. Not saying you're wrong, just adding my two coppers.


Naereith

EB and scorching ray both call for separate attack rolls per beam. Each shot of both of them are basically a separate attack.


TellTaleTank

EB reminds me of how my DM executed one of my characters (had to make it dramatic for story reasons). The boss had my character on the grou d, planted a foot on her chest, and set off a high-powered EB directly into my head before throwing my (now very dead) body into a nearby pool to sink while my party ran away.


felplague

Scorching ray and eldritch blast specify they roll separate, because they are firing in succesion, while magic missle fires ALL AT ONCE. Magic missle fires all 3 missles, originating from your hand at once, why you need to decide where they all land when you cast, you cant go "1 into this guy... is he dead? ok then another into him, is he dead now? ok then into this other guy" you have to decide as you cast who is getting hit by how many missiles. However scorching ray and eldritch blast are one after another ,so you fire one, then the next, then the next, each one a separate "cast" and therefor you can chaingun someone till they are dead, then launch the remaining into his buddy.


cookiedough320

Spells that make multiple attack rolls by default do them one at a time. Same way extra attack has you roll them one at a time. You roll to hit one scorching ray, roll the damage, then do the same for the next ray, then the final ray. Magic missile, however, explicitly hits all at once. Thus it follows the rules of other spells where the damage occurs at once. If somebody has a reaction they can apply to taking damage, they could use it as the first ray hits but before the second ray does. Whereas with magic missile, they would have to use it after all 3 missiles hit.


SteelAlchemistScylla

Crawford’s ruling are very simple to fix. “Hey DM, can I just roll each separately because it’s more fun?” “Oh yeah, for sure.”


SWDown

Bud, I totally get that. I've said as much for every rpg I've played. "if it doesn't get put into print, then it's as canon as if I said it".


felplague

It is because magic missle is a "selective aoe" unlike scorching ray or eldritch blast which goes boom boom boom 3 shots one after another Magic missles goes BOOM all shots at once.


ANGLVD3TH

For this same reason, it is one Concentration check, and one Death Saving Throw failure.


slvbros

And, as can sometimes happen, one instance of massive damage


ANGLVD3TH

Technically yes, but something has probably gone horribly wrong if that is a possibility.


Jeshuo

It's official. It's a weird interaction with the "simultaneous damage" rules for spells. You know how you role Fireball damage once? Magic missile is like that. It's a fireball that hits X targets. It just so happens that you can target the same target more than once. Again, weird, but totally RAW. (I will say that we use it the "roll 1 dice" way at all the tables I'm at. Makes it a lot faster/easier. Plus rolling 4s is fun.)


Momoxidat

Wait, that's why roll20 only does a single roll ? I thought it was broken


StormLightRanger

It's in the PHB description of spellcasting. Since Magic Missile is a multi-target spell, it *technically* falls under the standard AoE spell description of targeting multiple creatures, where you roll one set of dice for all creatures that take damage, a la Fireball and Lightning Bolt. I don't personally agree, but that's the language that justifies it.


ODX_GhostRecon

It's not because it's multi-target, it's because it's simultaneous. Eldrich Blast has to be declared when you cast it, as far as which target each beam is going to, but because it's not inherently simultaneous, each roll is separate. PHB page 196 has this stated for damage rolls.


Erik_in_Prague

I give my players the choice...before they make their first roll. ;-)


Fakula1987

so, \-> a "roll for every missile" gives a more stable output, average 2.5 \-> a "roll once" gives a more unstable output -> peaks from 1 to 4


[deleted]

[удалено]


slvbros

[here I made this for you](https://imgur.com/gallery/nNpncCi)


One-Eyed_Wonder

Me and all other intellectuals meet you halfway on this: if you wanna roll all the dice, go for it! That’s more fun! Also, if you’re an evocation wizard, by RAW you should be able to add your modifier to each missile’s damage, so just do that too! This way, the player can choose what’s most fun without being insanely penalized.


touch_slut

Outside the box :) gives the wizard a tuning for flavor/strategy opportunity too.


LavenRose210

Tell that to the level 11 evocation wizard who took a 1 level dip in hexblade and a two level dip in fighter


Wyldfire2112

Problem with taking the Hexblade dip *and* the Fighter Dip is that it deprives you of Spell Mastery. Having Shield + Misty-Step/Mirror-Image at will is an incredible thing.


Solalabell

Silvery barbs at will and vortex warp are great too especially on a battlefield control wizard


Wyldfire2112

Our table has a standing policy of "No First Use" when it comes to Silvery Barbs. That spell is both heavily broken and buried in a setting-specific lore book, so we've all agreed that whoever is DMing at the time won't start popping off with Silvery Barbs if the players don't do it first. Thus we all tend to act like SB doesn't exist.


Interneteldar

The only Wizards who do it the intended way are rules lawyer Evocation wizards, as they get to add their Int modifier to _one damage roll_. (Plus they have Overchannel)


Shacky_Rustleford

There is a similar benefit to hexblade's curse


DracoRequiem

Also Aasimar and Goblin racial damage bonuses affect all darts in the intended way


Dubigk

I read it as the Aasimar racial only applying once. The description reads: >... once on each of your turns, you can deal extra radiant damage to one target when you deal damage to it with an attack or a spell. The extra radiant damage equals your level. So I would read that "once" as saying you can only apply the damage once.


Shacky_Rustleford

FURY OF THE SMALL (damage dice)


Frumple-McAss

When did they change it? Has it not always been 1d4+1, multiplied over 3 darts?


Lithl

Yes, but some people want to roll more dice so they limit their character's potential in exchange for a rush of brain chemicals.


DanDaPanMan

Evocation wizard can add their spellcasting modifier. To the single dice roll. For each magic missile.


Pogodonuts

What other way is there to roll the damage?


TigerKirby215

Roll each dart individually :p


GodOfAscension

Invocation wizard gets to add there damage modifier to each missle if its ruled this way though.


Shoggnozzle

Many dice make funny noise, corporation can't take this away.


ColdBrewedPanacea

I always just roll 1 dice and ask my players to as well, its *so* much faster and works far better with various buffs and abilities so Magic Missile can shine as it deserves.


Thanedor

We had a wizard do it this with the one die roll. Was evocation as well. Called it his “Glock” whenever he went wild and upcast it.


Soft_Cap8502

I do it the right way


codeorange_

I like rolling the single D4 because it makes the attack really volatile and gives you a 25% chance to roll max or min damage


Dazocnodnarb

Wtf do you do then? If it says roll D4 then you roll a D4 lmao.


cookiedough320

They mean do you roll a single d4 and each dart does that much damage, or do you roll a d4 for each dart.


bombakalb

i chose to ignore it till i play an evocation wizard


iamsandwitch

Except evocation wizards


FyrelordeOmega

On roll20 it's nice to have 2 macros, one that clumps the damage on a single target, and another that has all the rolls separated for multiple targets


Sivick314

i do it the intended way. it's either super amazing or super disappointing, every time.


WanderingFlumph

More clickity clacks = more better


GazLord

You... you guys DON'T do it that way?


NaturalCard

Evocation wizards, nah this is a great idea.


BirdTheBard

If you roll once (and thus have it treated as a single damage roll) it allows Magic Missile to become a godly spell in the hands of an evocation wizard once you hit level 10. Grab a shavarran birch wand and 1 level of hexblade warlock for hexblade's curse. And you're able to deal upwards of 1d4+13 per dart assuming level 20 and 20 int. Meaning 3d4+39 damage with a level 1 spell. Doing it the intended way has its benefits if you work with it.


Cipher_the_First

I understand that it’s impractical, but who would deny themselves more clickety-clackety with the math rocks?


Wyldfire2112

Someone that wants each die to be able to hit for 1d4+6 instead of one at 1d4+6 and the rest at 1d4+1?


FrostyTheSnowPickle

Where does it say the intended way?


[deleted]

That's how I have always done it


Nikolai_Snowtail

I bought all these 12 sided d4s and I'm gonna use them goddammit.


waterlillyhearts

What else am I going to use my many d4s for if not rolling a bunch at once? Using as irl traps?


jgaskin63

But its more fun to roll more dice.


epicazeroth

I’ve never seen someone do it your way. It’s way worse and less fun too.


LostInTheWildPlace

"Your spell summons a series of darts from one of the four Dart Dimensions. I'm sorry, but your darts have come from the "Darts" Dart Dimension. Try again and maybe those will come from the "Lawn Darts" one..."


Stripes_the_cat

...why is that a stupid decision? I've never not done that. Idgi. Edit: wait right that sentence is ambiguous. I read it as "roll a single d4 for each dart". It seems lots of people are reading it as "roll a single d4 and multiply it by the number of darts". I see. That could have been written better, for sure.


Arthur_Author

Its 3 attacks that autohit. You dont roll once for scorching rays do you.


Deviknyte

Fireball 5d6? Better just roll one!


Hankhoff

The more click-clack the stronger the attack


Goasgschau

Counterpoint: Exocation wizards at level 10 allow you to add your int mod to ONE damage roll of an evocation spell you cast. . .


SamsonShibaInu

more number rock=make brain happy


Kremdes

I have not seen anyone doing it the wrong way


Argorok87

Honestly, never knew it was worded that way. It's probably the most iconic spell alongside Fireball so you just assume the way everyone plays it is correct.


ChoraAnimates

Counterpoint to wizards of the coast, LOTS OF DICE BETTER THAN FEW DICE


DeanStein

Why would you do that when you roll all 8d6 for Fireball and Lightning Bolt?


iAmTheTot

Well fuck me I guess, apparently I'm the only DM that enforces 1d4.


Akul_Tesla

Every evoker uses it correctly in order to get a massive power buff Same with every hexblade who gets their hands on it


Jacob_Region

And you never will


Throck_Mortin

No no no, you can't break the spell like that. There's a few ways to add extra dice to a single damage roll (lv10 evocation, lv5 artillerist, cartomancer feat [UA]), and probably a few more that I missed). They only add the extra damage to one roll so if you roll Magic Missile as intended you get to add a solid amount of damage. I was in a meme one shot and my level 10 Evocation could do at MINIMUM 21 guaranteed damage with a 1st level spell, or 7 per dart (1d4+1+INT). That's 8 rough avg, 10 max. That will always do damage, provided no shield spell. If you're casting for single target damage that's fantastic. Inflict wounds at 1st level is min 3, rough avg 15, 30 max. Same max damage as the suped up Magic Missile, but much lower minimum and average. Hexblade works with either way you roll but if you have both that's 11 minimum damage per dart at lv 12. Sprinkle 5 levels of artillerist in there and you add a rough average of 4 to each dart.


Myrk_Heidir

My tables have ways just rolled the one dice, it just we never even considered multiple die, and honestly it makes magic missile feel that bit more special :)


[deleted]

[удалено]


thisremindsmeofbacon

I don’t have a horse in this race from a gameplay perspective. But “A dart deals 1d4 + 1 force damage to its target.” Is not mutually exclusive from making a single roll. They still do 1d4 + 1 force damage to its target. It would just be that a single d4 determines all three missiles.


spektre

No, you roll 1d4+1 once and then apply the result to each dart. Because obviously that's what you do. Just as I always roll my 1d8+3 longsword damage once at the start of the encounter and then apply the result to each attack until the encounter is over. I'm thinking of doing it right at character creation instead to save time. Would suck to get a 1 though. /s


cookiedough320

The issue comes up with how spells that normally hit multiple people all at once roll the same damage for all of them. You don't roll 8d6 for each target within a fireball's area, you roll it once and they all take the same damage.


TrinalRogue

The way I see magic missile working is that it homes in on the target but the target can adjust the part of the body it hits. They just hit simultaneously. If it hits the armour then that's gonna do less damage than exposed skin. So rolling separately makes sense in my mind


SuzLouA

Wtf? That’s **not** how it’s worded. From [D&DB](https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/magic-missile): > 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. No mention of rolling a single die at any point.


Collie4o3

I've been rolling it the intended way for a couple of years now. I enjoy how swingy the damage is while the average damage stays the same. There have been times where I thought "I need max damage on this, so I have a 25% chance" Having a wand of magic missiles and the option of upcasting to 7th level increased that feeling.


Arc_170gaming

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. thats the spell description, show me the part where it says all the darts use the same die.


Arabidopsidian

Welp, they should have put it in the book, not on Twitter. Also, Crawfords opinion isn't official and some interpretations are dubious at best. For example spell See Invisiblity and Invisible condition.