Empowered Evocation + Magic Missile

[Ranikirn.]

Last session a player that play an evocation wizard used his lvl 10 feature Empowered Evocation applied to magic missile (that means 1D4 + 1 + Int mod for each missile) dealing almost 100 force dmgs in 3 turns at the BBEG (killing him, obviously).

Empowered Evocation:
Beginning at 10th level, you can add your Intelligence modifier to the damage roll of any wizard evocation spell you cast

As DM i did not know about this OP combination, and i wanna change it. What you think about Empowered Evocation + Magic Missile? Any advice from other DMs?

[Dark Schneider]

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/01/26/magic-missile-3-bolts/

It seems when you get Empowered Evocation MM upgrades to a greater version.

Shield, Counterspell, or Globe of Invulnerability can do the trick.

[MaxWilson]

Last session a player that play an evocation wizard used his lvl 10 feature Empowered Evocation applied to magic missile (that means 1D4 + 1 + Int mod for each missile) dealing almost 100 force dmgs in 3 turns at the BBEG (killing him, obviously).

Empowered Evocation:
Beginning at 10th level, you can add your Intelligence modifier to the damage roll of any wizard evocation spell you cast

As DM i did not know about this OP combination, and i wanna change it. What you think about Empowered Evocation + Magic Missile? Any advice from other DMs?

It's not OP, and frankly I think Empowered Evocation and Draconic Sorcerer's Elemental Affinity should both be written to work on one spell per turn, not just one roll of a spell. It's quite unintuitive for example that you only get it on one of your Scorching Rays when you cast Scorching Ray, for example. It's certainly not what I expected when I first read the PHB, way back when--I initially thought it worked just like adding +Dex to each arrow, only it's +Cha for each Scorching Ray.

Doing ~100 damage over the course of three turns with high-level Magic Missile isn't OP for a 10th level wizard. Any bad guy who died to that would have died equally hard to any number of other things.

So, my recommendation is that if you're unhappy with the results, you should use tougher bad guys. As another poster said, a Shield spell would have blocked this spell anyway. A Young Adult Red Dragon who is also a Dragon Sorcerer 5(ish) is quite a fearsome boss, for example, despite being "only" a 5th level caster, using e.g. Shield spell (or Counterspell) + Darkness + his built-in blindsight + a quickened Blink spell.

[Ranikirn.]

It's not OP, and frankly I think Empowered Evocation and Draconic Sorcerer's Elemental Affinity should both be written to work on one spell per turn, not just one roll of a spell. It's quite unintuitive for example that you only get it on one of your Scorching Rays when you cast Scorching Ray, for example. It's certainly not what I expected when I first read the PHB, way back when--I initially thought it worked just like adding +Dex to each arrow, only it's +Cha for each Scorcing Ray.

Doing ~100 damage over the course of three turns with Magic Missile isn't OP. Any bad guy who died to that would have died equally hard to any number of other things.
EE works only on ONE damage roll so with Scorching Ray works only on the first damage roll, not all 3. Because MM use only 1 dmg dice, ur intelligence modifier is applied for each missile. This is OP, because my player used 2 lvl 1 MM then a lvl 5 MM doing 70 dmgs. No hit roll, no saving throw, just 70 FORCE dmgs.

For Example. a Level 5 MM with EE:
1D4 + 1 + 5 (Int mod) for 7 missile. If u roll 2 u do 2+1+5 * 7 = 56 :smallannoyed:



So, my recommendation is that if you're unhappy with the results, you should use tougher bad guys. As another poster said, a Shield spell would have blocked this spell anyway. A Young Adult Red Dragon who is also a Dragon Sorcerer 5(ish) is quite a fearsome boss, for example, despite being "only" a 5th level caster, using e.g. Shield spell (or Counterspell) + Darkness + his built-in blindsight + a quickened Blink spell.
Ye i know, shield block MM. But why i'have to use shield on each BBEG? If he is not a caster?

[Twigwit]

JC’s ruling is absurd. Sage advice isn’t RAW, and the clear way it should work is one of the missiles gets the boost and the others don’t.

[Misterwhisper]

JC’s ruling is absurd. Sage advice isn’t RAW, and the clear way it should work is one of the missiles gets the boost and the others don’t.

It is because JC is a total magic missile mark. He loved his magic missile force adept back in 3.5 and has been a total fanboy over it.

Look at some of the other things he has said about it.

It is not an attack at all because there is not attack roll so nothing that triggers when you attack or when attacked works.

It targets a creature directly so it can’t miss because of mirror image.

And more.

[MidgetMarine]

This is OP, because my player used 2 lvl 1 MM then a lvl 5 MM doing 70 dmgs. No hit roll, no saving throw, just 70 FORCE dmgs.

Ye i know, shield block MM. But why i'have to use shield on each BBEG? If he is not a caster?

Okay, let's talk about this. 100 damage over 3 turns at level 10 is approximately 33 damage per turn. That can easily be achieved by a fighter or a barbarian with Great Weapon Master. You don't HAVE to use shield on each BBEG, but then they're going to take a ton of damage from your SPECIFICALLY DAMAGE ORIENTED Wizard. If this BBEG knows anything about the party then he should be able to prepare for this evoker, if he doesn't know anything about the party then, to be honest, he's a pretty bad villain. And if he isn't a caster, there's equally brutal things that a 10th level wizard can do to a non-casting, non-magic villain. You're just up in arms because it's a big number, but this isn't Over Powered at all. It was in fact, a specific interaction that was meant to be baked into the system.

No offense, but complaining about something that can be solved and is 100% intended is just sort of weird, especially when your response "But why should I have to use the solution?" Well, you don't HAVE to use Shield or any of the other solutions, but then you've just admitted you're willingly walking your bad guys right into a party member's strength with no intent of giving said BBEG counterplay, and then that's on you, not on MM+EE being OP.

[MidgetMarine]

JC’s ruling is absurd. Sage advice isn’t RAW, and the clear way it should work is one of the missiles gets the boost and the others don’t.

No it's not. the Sage Advice clearly reinforces what the Rules As Worded state. What you're claiming is counter to RAW, don't claim otherwise.

[MaxWilson]

EE works only on ONE damage roll so with Scorching Ray works only on the first damage roll, not all 3.

Yes, I know, and what I said is that frankly I think it should work on one spell and not on one roll. Even back when I thought Empowered Scorching Ray did 2d6+CHA per ray, I didn't think it was a particularly good spell; doing merely 2d6 on every ray except one makes the Elemental Affinity feature just trash.

Changing it to work the way I originally thought it worked (way back when) would not make it OP, and letting MM apply the same damage on every missile is also not OP.


Because MM use only 1 dmg dice, ur intelligence modifier is applied for each missile.

Yep, I know.


This is OP, because my player used 2 lvl 1 MM then a lvl 5 MM doing 70 dmgs. No hit roll, no saving throw, just 70 FORCE dmgs.

That's not OP. A Sorlock of the same level could have done 168 damage (times hit probability) with a few Quickened Agonizing Eldritch Blasts over the same time span, and for a lower resource cost. Any bad guy who died to those magic missiles would have died to any number of other things.


Ye i know, shield block MM. But why i'have to use shield on each BBEG? If he is not a caster?

There are other options too. Some bad guys (goblins, shadows, shadow dragons) have a bonus action Hide which would prevent the wizard from targeting them unless another PC Searches them out. Other bad guys like T-Rexes can grapple one PC and then retreat behind total cover to eat him in privacy, again preventing the wizard from targeting them. Other bad guys have Counterspell, and other bad guys like Invisible Stalkers are invisible and therefore cannot be targeted with Magic Missile unless the caster first casts See Invisibility. Others just have lots of HP, or lots of minions with lots of collective HP, or do so much damage that the PCs cannot afford to spend three rounds defeating them. Others have enough mobility to teleport or fly away when they're getting low on HP, making them an unsolved problem who could pop up again at any time unless/until the PCs finally defeat them.

I repeat, if you aren't happy with the results of one PC using one of the many strategies for dealing 100+ HP damage to a bad guy over three rounds of combat at 10th level, use stronger and/or smarter bad guys. 100 damage over three rounds is not remarkable. That same bad guy would have died just as hard e.g. if two casters had cooperated to throw up Cloudkill + Wall of Force to trap the bad guy in a Wall of Force for 100 rounds taking 5d8 poison damage (save for half) every round, for 500d8 total damage, with no save and no chance of escape.

You need bad guys with more/better counterplay.

[Dark Schneider]

I think the problem is not OP, is looking at the specific case. It is supposed to be the Evocation Wizard (EW) specialization. Let's compare schools effects:

- Abjuration: free extra HP that can protect others, permanent resistance and advantage against spells.
- Divination: extra "saving" rolls, free divination casting (you recover slots!), permanent selectable sight effects.
- Conjuration: free short range teleportations, cannot lost concentration, improved summons.
- Enchantment: hold creature while not getting harm, change for target, extra target, remove enchantment backslash.

Looking at the others, there are many permanent, useful, and more.

Looking at Evocation, Potent Cantrip is a "bit" underpowered compared with others (compare with Divination that gives you free divination casting, recovering slots), Overchanneling can only be used once per day, you get too much damage if you use more times, and Empowered Evocation is not so great in many cases (scorching ray, when succeed on saving throw). So having some good case like MM maybe was for compensating.

[RedMage125]

I am also confused about the objection.

Your PC is using THREE 5th level slots to accomplish this. That is several high-level resources, expended only to do damage, and only to one target, and it is in accordance with the specialty that the player has chosen for his character to specifically excel at.

Look at other 5th level spells.

Cone of Cold, in the hands of this wizard would do 8d8+INT mod (5, right) damage. A d8 averages 4.5 dmg. So (4.5*8)+5=41 damage. That's PER TARGET. So if your wizard hits at least 2 targets with this spell (and let's assume he's not going to waste an AoE to hit only one creature), it begins to outstrip the damage done by the upcast magic missile.

Also, OP, do you only roll ONE d4 for Magic Missile, and then multiply by number of missiles? While it's not deviating from the rules, it's different than every other DM I have ever played with.

I also don't understand why Elemental Affinity and Empowered Evocation work differently (and I can't follow the link to Sage Advice right now). Let's use Scorching Ray as an example, because both Wizards and Sorcerers get it. Am I understanding that a Fire Draconic Sorcerer only gets the +CHA mod to one ray, but the Evoker gets +INT mod to all 3? That makes no sense to me. Maybe I'm missing something here, I would like clarification.

[Mikal]

I am also confused about the objection.

Your PC is using THREE 5th level slots to accomplish this. That is several high-level resources, expended only to do damage, and only to one target, and it is in accordance with the specialty that the player has chosen for his character to specifically excel at.


While I have no issue with the ruling or what the wizard did... I have to correct you. The wizard did this with 2 1st level slots, and 1 5th level slot, per the OP.

[Twigwit]

No it's not. the Sage Advice clearly reinforces what the Rules As Worded state. What you're claiming is counter to RAW, don't claim otherwise.

Last time I checked, 3 rolls of 1d4 isn’t a single roll.


Beginning at 10th level, you can add your Intelligence modifier to one damage roll of any Wizard Evocation spell you cast.

There’s nothing in that wording that suggests that it applies to more than one roll of a magic missiles damage. The idea that it applies to all of them because it’s a “single roll done multiple times” is a blatant reimagining of what Empowered Evocation actually does. It’s ludicrous. That’s like saying you could twin it because it’s single target but it just picks multiple single targets. Even if MM is deserving of an upgrade I dislike this ruling because it muddies the waters by making what was once clear cut language now vague and confusing.

[MaxWilson]

Also, OP, do you only roll ONE d4 for Magic Missile, and then multiply by number of missiles? While it's not deviating from the rules, it's different than every other DM I have ever played with.

It's because of how the "simultaneous" clause in Magic Missile interacts with 5E's rules for rolling simultaneous damage for AoE spells. It's not strictly required by RAW to treat Magic Missile the same way as an AoE spell, but it's certainly reasonable, and it avoids some thorny problems with multi-targeting scenarios. In any case, that's clearly what motivates Crawford's reading of the rules.

[Dark Schneider]

Last time I checked, 3 rolls of 1d4 isn’t a single roll.

There’s nothing in that wording that suggests that it applies to more than one roll of a magic missiles damage. The idea that it applies to all of them because it’s a “single roll done multiple times” is a blatant reimagining of what Empowered Evocation actually does. It’s ludicrous. That’s like saying you could twin it because it’s single target but it just picks multiple single targets. Even if MM is deserving of an upgrade I dislike this ruling because it muddies the waters by making what was once clear cut language now vague and confusing.
Single roll, single or multiple targets.
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/01/26/magic-missile-3-bolts/

[Keravath]

Last time I checked, 3 rolls of 1d4 isn’t a single roll.



There’s nothing in that wording that suggests that it applies to more than one roll of a magic missiles damage. The idea that it applies to all of them because it’s a “single roll done multiple times” is a blatant reimagining of what Empowered Evocation actually does. It’s ludicrous. That’s like saying you could twin it because it’s single target but it just picks multiple single targets. Even if MM is deserving of an upgrade I dislike this ruling because it muddies the waters by making what was once clear cut language now vague and confusing.

However, in this version of D&D, there is some discussion of how magic missile works exactly and a common interpretation is that ONE die is rolled and the value used for all missiles. I found this surprising coming from earlier editions of the game where, in the games I played, a separate die was rolled for every missile.

Sage advice:
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/10/17/magic-missile-do-you-roll-the-same-d4-for-all-darts/

The key item appears to be: PHB 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."

Magic missile specifically can target as many different targets as there are missiles ... as a result, RAW, you roll the damage once and apply the same to all targets. In this case, the Empowering ability of a wizard applies to each missle since the damage is only rolled once.

RAI ... the quote says play it however you like.

[Keravath]

To the OP ... 100 damage over 3 rounds at level 10 using 2 1st and 1 5th level spell slots isn't OP. It isn't even unusual.

My 5th level pact of the blade warlock with PAM and GWM ... attacking with advantage due to darkness + devils sight ... did 2d10 + d4 + 39 in one round in the last session ... with the specific dice rolls is was about 57 damage (magical slashing due to improved pact weapon). This exceeds the damage threshold of 100 over 3 rounds ... 5 levels earlier.

A level 10 sorlock using quickened eldritch blast (assuming ASI into stats) will do up to 4d10+20 force damage each round (average 42) ... totaling 126 force damage over 3 rounds at the cost of 6 sorcery points (though they might miss some of them).

Most decent fighters/barbarians with the right feats and gear can also easily surpass the 100/3 rounds mark at level 10 (at level 11 it is trivial since the fighter will pick up yet another attack).

Admittedly, magic missile can't miss ... though it can be defeated by either a shield spell or a brooch of shielding (which honestly exists only to prevent magic missile spam and provide resistance to eldritch blast :) ). If your BBEG finds himself frequently attacked by force damage ... he might likely invest in one of these.

[MidgetMarine]

Last time I checked, 3 rolls of 1d4 isn’t a single roll.

You're right, but that's not what the wording is.
The wording is that it fires X number of darts and that, and this is the important differentiation from other spells, "a dart deals 1d4+1". This specific wording, and the syntax connecting it to the rest of the spell compared to other spells means that all these missiles come back to look at this single dice roll, as Jeremy has pointed out. I'm sure you'd like it to be otherwise, but it's very specifically worded differently from other spells, something Jeremy is very careful about, to all point back to a single damage roll. As has been pointed out above, what you're building your argument on is not Rules As Worded. So here you're just wrong.

[Misterwhisper]

You're right, but that's not what the wording is.
The wording is that it fires X number of darts and that, and this is the important differentiation from other spells, "a dart deals 1d4+1". This specific wording, and the syntax connecting it to the rest of the spell compared to other spells means that all these missiles come back to look at this single dice roll, as Jeremy has pointed out. I'm sure you'd like it to be otherwise, but it's very specifically worded differently from other spells, something Jeremy is very careful about, to all point back to a single damage roll. So here you're just wrong.

I like your logic, we think the same way.

[Keravath]

You're right, but that's not what the wording is.
The wording is that it fires X number of darts and that, and this is the important differentiation from other spells, "a dart deals 1d4+1". This specific wording, and the syntax connecting it to the rest of the spell compared to other spells means that all these missiles come back to look at this single dice roll, as Jeremy has pointed out. I'm sure you'd like it to be otherwise, but it's very specifically worded differently from other spells, something Jeremy is very careful about, to all point back to a single damage roll. So here you're just wrong.

Although your answer is correct. The reasoning is not. Just based on syntax, the spell itself can be read either way. The real reason the damage is only rolled once is because the spell can affect multiple targets simultaneously and in this case the rules state that the damage is rolled once for all targets (and thus all missiles do the same damage).

[MidgetMarine]

Although your answer is correct. The reasoning is not. Just based on syntax, the spell itself can be read either way. The real reason the damage is only rolled once is because the spell can affect multiple targets simultaneously and in this case the rules state that the damage is rolled once for all targets (and thus all missiles do the same damage).

I was more using the syntax exception to reinforce the reasons on multiple/single instance damage targeting above, rather than re-hash it for the umpteenth time. But yes, those two factors are the key compounding features. it CAN be read either way, but the exception has been made to clearly accommodate the multiple instance rule

[Willie the Duck]

Regardless of any analysis of the wording of the game rules or precedence set by general rules on multi-target spells, I won't be using 'roll 1d4+1 and use it for all missiles.' It violates the feel of the spell as I've come to know it, it makes a the spell too swingy, and it violates overall theme in how damage works in general (Fireballs could be 1d6*8 instead of 8d6, but they aren't). All of this boils down to 'it doesn't feel right,' which honestly is just fine for reasoning, AFAIC.


I am also confused about the objection.

Your PC is using THREE 5th level slots to accomplish this.

As Keravath pointed out, it was two first and one fifth. I generally agree that it isn't OP for a 5th level spell, but that wouldn't surprise me, as upcast damage spells often underperform. It is more the 1st level casting that is interesting. Is 3x 1d4+(potentially)6 too powerful a perk for an 10th-level evoker to be getting out of their 1st level slots? Probably not, given what a 10th level evoker can get out of a Shield spell. It is certainly odd how much more it benefits a MM than a Chromatic Orb, or the like, but that's akin to how much more +stat to attack is for a warlock with agonizing Eldritch Bolt than it is for a (level 6+) red/gold draconic sorcerer with Flame Bolt. There doesn't seem to be a consistent precedent for exactly how much a low-level spell is supposed to still be useful for a high-level spellcaster (at least not one where you can exclude other considerations of class balance).

Overall, I don't like how this makes MM the clear-and-obvious choice for a high level evoker (when they've gone to a lot of trouble to give plenty of options for people who want to play direct-damage spellcasters), but overall I don't think it strays too far from any design principle. The evoker, on a holistic analysis, is still not one of the archetypes one tends to consider OP (albeit still a oft-played one, since who doesn't want to be able to fireball the front line without your party tarring and feathering you?). OTOH, exactly how many DM's give a rat's patoot what the SA says? I suspect if you tried to pull this in any given DM's game, you would have a very-near-to-50% chance of having them rule it your way.

[Misterwhisper]

Regardless of any analysis of the wording of the game rules or precedence set by general rules on multi-target spells, I won't be using 'roll 1d4+1 and use it for all missiles.' It violates the feel of the spell as I've come to know it, it makes a the spell too swingy, and it violates overall theme in how damage works in general (Fireballs could be 1d6*8 instead of 8d6, but they aren't). All of this boils down to 'it doesn't feel right,' which honestly is just fine for reasoning, AFAIC.



As Keravath pointed out, it was two first and one fifth. I generally agree that it isn't OP for a 5th level spell, but that wouldn't surprise me, as upcast damage spells often underperform. It is more the 1st level casting that is interesting. Is 3x 1d4+(potentially)6 too powerful a perk for an 10th-level evoker to be getting out of their 1st level slots? Probably not, given what a 10th level evoker can get out of a Shield spell. It is certainly odd how much more it benefits a MM than a Chromatic Orb, or the like, but that's akin to how much more +stat to attack is for a warlock with agonizing Eldritch Bolt than it is for a (level 6+) red/gold draconic sorcerer with Flame Bolt. There doesn't seem to be a consistent precedent for exactly how much a low-level spell is supposed to still be useful for a high-level spellcaster (at least not one where you can exclude other considerations of class balance).

Overall, I don't like how this makes MM the clear-and-obvious choice for a high level evoker (when they've gone to a lot of trouble to give plenty of options for people who want to play direct-damage spellcasters), but overall I don't think it strays too far from any design principle. The evoker, on a holistic analysis, is still not one of the archetypes one tends to consider OP (albeit still a oft-played one, since who doesn't want to be able to fireball the front line without your party tarring and feathering you?). OTOH, exactly how many DM's give a rat's patoot what the SA says? I suspect if you tried to pull this in any given DM's game, you would have a very-near-to-50% chance of having them rule it your way.

It becomes an issue when the player is an aasimar who also adds their level to one damage roll per turn for a min and throws out close to 150 unmissable force damage with a 5th level spell in one action at level 10. That is not even an attack and ignores mirror image too.

Heaven forbid if they get to level 18 and can throw a magic missile at will with spell mastery.

[DarkKnightJin]

Sorta tangentially related thing that I've run into with my EK/Warlock: How would you guys rule the Magic Missile interacting with Hex? Let's say it's a 1st level MM. 3 times 1d4+1d6+1, or (3d4+3)+1d6?

My DM ruled it as the damage from Hex only applying once. And seemed to imply that he'd 'nerf' Hex to apply just once for Eldritch Blast, too..

[Willie the Duck]

It becomes an issue when the player is an aasimar who also adds their level to one damage roll per turn for a min and throws out close to 150 unmissable force damage with a 5th level spell in one action at level 10. That is not even an attack and ignores mirror image too.

Heaven forbid if they get to level 18 and can throw a magic missile at will with spell mastery.

To the first, yes, this highlights problems with taking this ruling to the logical extreme. I suspect this will eventually make its way to JC and co and they will reverse themselves. :smalltongue:

To the second, well, if they wasted their 1 minute/day aasimar boost on casting 1st level slots (infinite as they may be), count yourself lucky.


Sorta tangentially related thing that I've run into with my EK/Warlock: How would you guys rule the Magic Missile interacting with Hex? Let's say it's a 1st level MM. 3 times 1d4+1d6+1, or (3d4+3)+1d6?

My DM ruled it as the damage from Hex only applying once. And seemed to imply that he'd 'nerf' Hex to apply just once for Eldritch Blast, too..

Apparently, for the moment, the official word is 3 instances of 1d4(same roll for all missiles) + 1 + 1d6 (not clearly stated, but probably one roll for this as well).

As for nerfing Hex, that is an odd one. Is Hex running away with your game? I'd mention to him that this nerf would make warlocks even more onto one-trick-pony glorified machine guns, and is that really what he wants to do?

[Degwerks]

It becomes an issue when the player is an aasimar who also adds their level to one damage roll per turn for a min and throws out close to 150 unmissable force damage with a 5th level spell in one action at level 10. That is not even an attack and ignores mirror image too.

Heaven forbid if they get to level 18 and can throw a magic missile at will with spell mastery.

Yeah don't forget about the Hexblade dip Aasimar with the same evocation wizard ability. Adding in Hexblade Curse damage based on proficiency bonus.

[Misterwhisper]

Yeah don't forget about the Hexblade dip Aasimar with the same evocation wizard ability. Adding in Hexblade Curse damage based on proficiency bonus.

Or just go celestial and add cha to the damage at level 6. A little too deep of a multiclass for me though.

[MaxWilson]

It becomes an issue when the player is an aasimar who also adds their level to one damage roll per turn for a min and throws out close to 150 unmissable force damage with a 5th level spell in one action at level 10. That is not even an attack and ignores mirror image too.

Heaven forbid if they get to level 18 and can throw a magic missile at will with spell mastery.

Illegal, doesn't work. Aasimar ability just deals damage once per turn, it doesn't add to the value of the per-missile damage roll like Empowered Evocation does, so it doesn't scale with the number of missiles. Citations:


Your transformation lasts for 1 minute or until you end it as a bonus action. During it, you have a flying speed of 30 feet, and 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. Once you use this trait, you can't use it again until you finish a long rest.

Contrast:


Beginning at 10th level, you can add your Intelligence modifier to the damage roll of any wizard evocation spell you cast

=======================================


Sorta tangentially related thing that I've run into with my EK/Warlock: How would you guys rule the Magic Missile interacting with Hex? Let's say it's a 1st level MM. 3 times 1d4+1d6+1, or (3d4+3)+1d6?

My DM ruled it as the damage from Hex only applying once. And seemed to imply that he'd 'nerf' Hex to apply just once for Eldritch Blast, too..

My ruling: by strict RAW, Magic Missile doesn't interact with Hex because it doesn't involve hitting with an attack, since there is no attack roll. Absent a compelling reason to houserule otherwise (like a player who really, really wants to Hex + Magic Missile as a big part of his character, and a discussion amongst the other players confirming that nobody minds changing Hex for this campaign) it's just simpler to stick with the RAW in this case.

=======================================


Yeah don't forget about the Hexblade dip Aasimar with the same evocation wizard ability. Adding in Hexblade Curse damage based on proficiency bonus.

Hexblade's Curse does work by RAW because it applies to damage rolls, not just damage rolls when an attack hits. It's not a big deal though. Once per short rest, and at the cost of Cha 13+ and a level in Hexblade, you're spending your action on round 1 to boost your damage by +6 per missile on rounds 2+, so that your Empowered Magic Missile V can do 94.5 points of force damage on average. Interesting but not exactly game-breaking when you consider what else you could have done with that 5th level spell slot instead, e.g. Dance Macabre or Wall of Force.

[Misterwhisper]

Illegal, doesn't work. Aasimar ability just deals damage once per turn, it doesn't add to the value of the per-missile damage roll like Empowered Evocation does, so it doesn't scale with the number of missiles. Citations:



Contrast:



=======================================



My ruling: by strict RAW, Magic Missile doesn't interact with Hex because it doesn't involve hitting with an attack, since there is no attack roll. Absent a compelling reason to houserule otherwise (like a player who really, really wants to Hex + Magic Missile as a big part of his character, and a discussion amongst the other players confirming that nobody minds changing Hex for this campaign) it's just simpler to stick with the RAW in this case.

I am so glad you pointed that out, I was actually hoping it did not work.

[Keravath]

It becomes an issue when the player is an aasimar who also adds their level to one damage roll per turn for a min and throws out close to 150 unmissable force damage with a 5th level spell in one action at level 10. That is not even an attack and ignores mirror image too.

Heaven forbid if they get to level 18 and can throw a magic missile at will with spell mastery.

Cool! I'll have to look into starting one of these for an AL character :) ... Aasimar evoker with probably 1 cleric dip :)

Edit: Ooops ... should have read the rest of the replies first ... the aasimar ability clearly applies to one creature and not one spell.

[JackPhoenix]

Or just go celestial and add cha to the damage at level 6. A little too deep of a multiclass for me though.

Doesn't work, Celestial warlock adds damage to SPELL that does fire or radiant damage. Magic Missile doesn't do that, even for aaasimar.

[Misterwhisper]

Doesn't work, Celestial warlock adds damage to SPELL that does fire or radiant damage. Magic Missile doesn't do that, even for aaasimar.

Yeah I noticed that after someone pointed out it is extra damage flat, not damage to the spell itself.

[DarkKnightJin]

To the first, yes, this highlights problems with taking this ruling to the logical extreme. I suspect this will eventually make its way to JC and co and they will reverse themselves. :smalltongue:

To the second, well, if they wasted their 1 minute/day aasimar boost on casting 1st level slots (infinite as they may be), count yourself lucky.



Apparently, for the moment, the official word is 3 instances of 1d4(same roll for all missiles) + 1 + 1d6 (not clearly stated, but probably one roll for this as well).

As for nerfing Hex, that is an odd one. Is Hex running away with your game? I'd mention to him that this nerf would make warlocks even more onto one-trick-pony glorified machine guns, and is that really what he wants to do?

I grabbed Hex at the last level up, and have been the only one to use it. I don't have Eldritch Blast, so I am not sure what he's thinking. I mean, I don't mind getting just 1d6 extra damage on MM. I just hope he's not going to try and bull**** it that I can only trigger it with 1 hit per turn. That's gonna make it a lot less useful for a Fighter..

As for MM not being an attack.. I thought the attack roll thing was how you could reason something being an attack if there was any doubt of it being such.
But, apparently, sending between 3 and 11 darts of magical energy to wound someone isn't considered an 'attack'. Wish someone told that to the Cyclops I pissed off with that, because he sure seemed to think I attacked him.

[MaxWilson]

As for MM not being an attack.. I thought the attack roll thing was how you could reason something being an attack if there was any doubt of it being such.
But, apparently, sending between 3 and 11 darts of magical energy to wound someone isn't considered an 'attack'. Wish someone told that to the Cyclops I ---- off with that, because he sure seemed to think I attacked him.

This is why WotC's editors should have used a different typographic font for game jargon, so readers can easily tell the difference between an attack and an attack. Hex applies only to attacks, i.e. things with attack rolls. Specifically, Hex only triggers when you hit with an attack. It doesn't trigger on Fireball either, for instance, or Hold Monster, even though the Cyclops could rightly consider either of those an attack.

[JackPhoenix]

Yeah I noticed that after someone pointed out it is extra damage flat, not damage to the spell itself.

That may have been me, few days ago when you posted the same build :smallbiggrin:

[Twigwit]

Whoops, looks like I’ve been playing magic missile wrong for 4+ years. Old habits die hard and all that.

[sithlordnergal]

My best suggestion to you is build better bosses. As many, many people have pointed out, 100 damage over 2 to 3 rounds is not unusual at that level. Hell, its a bit low for my standards. Your average Paladin/Sorcerer at level level 10, using a non-magical longsword with Quicken spell, Booming Blade, and an 18 in Strength can deal an average of 88 to 89 points of damage in a single round with Quicken Booming Blade, Attack, and Extra Attack, while burning a 4th level slot and two 3rd level slots. And they'll have enough resources to smite three times again on the next turn.

Your only way to counter that is to build/use more challenging bosses. Either give them higher hp or give them a way to counter MM. Shield is a great way to do so, but you can also make an enemy that is immune to, or resistant to, Force damage, have an enemy be immune to spells below a certain level like the Rakshasa are, or take my favorite path:

Build an enemy who uses Reactions and Legendary Actions to grant themselves immunity to certain damage types. Only make it so if the target is hit by the damage type they're immune to, have it heal the target for half of what it would normally have taken. The enemy can use reactions or legendary actions to swap out their immunities at will. So say it was going to be hit by a Fireball, it can use its reaction to become immune to fire, and it will heal half of what the fireball would have done to it. But now that it is immune to fire, it can be hit by things like electricity, poison, or force damage, and since it used its only reaction it can't defend itself against those until it takes a legendary reaction to change the immunity.

[Willie the Duck]

As for MM not being an attack.. I thought the attack roll thing was how you could reason something being an attack if there was any doubt of it being such.
But, apparently, sending between 3 and 11 darts of magical energy to wound someone isn't considered an 'attack'. Wish someone told that to the Cyclops I pissed off with that, because he sure seemed to think I attacked him.

It is a real problem. I notice that in this edition, invisibility also has a spell clause, eliminating the question of whether fireballing someone is an attack. Overall, this is one of those things that I really wish they had started with jargon dissimilar to natural language (instead of using the term "attack roll," that mechanic was termed a "strike roll," or something, such that any reference to an attack was the colloquial meaning of the word).

Regardless, Magic Missile will always be an odd spell out, because (since B/X, I believe) not having to check for successful hitting (either by attack roll by the caster, or saving throw by the target) is its iconic quality.