Magic Missile and Knowledge Devotion

[RNightstalker]

So KD gives a PC an insight bonus on attack rolls and damage rolls against the target you have the corresponding skill for. Since each missile has its own damage roll, wouldn't KD apply to each missile then?

[Thurbane]

This is somewhat undefined. Not sure if this is RAW, but the way we run it in our games is the same way that Warmage Edge works: only once per spell (or all targets in an area effect).

[Saintheart]

I would tend to handle it the same way KD applies to Spiritual Weapon. Spiritual Weapon is explicit that none of your feats apply to it and underlines that it strikes as a spell, not a weapon, so Knowledge Devotion doesn't apply.

I think there's also a bit of a fluff argument for keeping KD out of Magic Missile. Magic Missile is said to "unerringly strike a target" it's directed at. Ergo, your own personal insights into that creature's movements and behaviours garnered by Knowledge Devotion don't make one lick of difference to the spell's accuracy, it hits every time. The damage rolls represent a variable-sized packet of energy which isn't made any more damaging by Knowledge Devotion because Magic Missile always unerringly hits - in effect the spell decides for itself what part of the body it's going to smash into, you have no more part in that than a cleric casting Spiritual Weapon gets to choose where on the opponent's body the weapon swings at.

[Silva Stormrage]

Wait wait wait. Since when do things that modify damage rolls modify spell damage :smallconfused:

"Damage roll" is only ever used in terms of weapon attacks, either with manufactured or natural weapons. It's literally never used in the magic section of the players handbook to describe damage dealt by spells.

Is this defined somewhere else? Even in the Rules Compendium section on Weaponlike Spells seems to back this up. In there the Rules Compendium calls out certain feats such as point blank shot being able to also boost damage from spells. This would be redundant if spell's damage was already increased due to it being a "Damage roll".

Am I missing something?

[Thurbane]

"Damage roll" is only ever used in terms of weapon attacks, either with manufactured or natural weapons. It's literally never used in the magic section of the players handbook to describe damage dealt by spells.

Do you have a citation that damage rolls applies specifically only to weapons?

Looking at the D&D glossary (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=&alpha=d), "damage roll" is not a defined term.

[Seerow]

Stuff that applies to damage rolls will apply to weaponlike spells. These are typically defined as spells that require an attack roll.

So KD won't work with MM. If you instead cast Scorching Ray, there's an argument (IMO valid one) to apply KD to all rays from the Scorching Ray.

[Biggus]

Stuff that applies to damage rolls will apply to weaponlike spells. These are typically defined as spells that require an attack roll.

So KD won't work with MM. If you instead cast Scorching Ray, there's an argument (IMO valid one) to apply KD to all rays from the Scorching Ray.

This. Check out the section on 'weaponlike spells' on p.72-73 of Complete Arcane. It defines them as spells which require an attack roll and deal damage, so MM doesn't count.

It doesn't make it clear whether feats which give damage bonuses apply separately to each ray/ bolt/ etc or not though.

[Troacctid]

Wait wait wait. Since when do things that modify damage rolls modify spell damage :smallconfused:
Since like forever? That's why effects that don't include spells are always specifying "weapon damage rolls" instead. If you get a bonus to all damage rolls, it applies to spells too, including non-weaponlike spells if applicable. (Many damage bonuses, such as sneak attack, require an attack roll, which naturally rules out many spells.)


It doesn't make it clear whether feats which give damage bonuses apply separately to each ray/ bolt/ etc or not though.
It does, actually. Look again. Only the first attack made with the spell each round gets the bonus, regardless of whether it hits or misses. Unfortunately this doesn't resolve OP's question because magic missile isn't weaponlike.

[SirNibbles]

It doesn't matter whether or not it is a spell or weaponlike. MM has a damage roll. Knowledge Devotion gives a bonus to damage rolls. It's completely unambiguous.

[Reprimand]

The Rules Compendium's take on weaponlike spells:
...can threaten critical hits, can be used with precision damage (see page 42), and can be used with favored enemy damage bonuses. Since a weaponlike spell isn’t actually a weapon, Strength modifiers on damage rolls and magical effects that increase weapon damage don’t increase damage from a weaponlike spell unless the spell’s description says otherwise.

The damage is a function of the hit, not of the spell itself.

[Troacctid]

The Rules Compendium's take on weaponlike spells:
...can threaten critical hits, can be used with precision damage (see page 42), and can be used with favored enemy damage bonuses. Since a weaponlike spell isn’t actually a weapon, Strength modifiers on damage rolls and magical effects that increase weapon damage don’t increase damage from a weaponlike spell unless the spell’s description says otherwise.
Yes, like I said, many effects specifically say "weapon damage" and do not apply to spells. However, Knowledge Devotion does not have that restriction.


The damage is a function of the hit, not of the spell itself.
???

[SirNibbles]

The Rules Compendium's take on weaponlike spells:
...can threaten critical hits, can be used with precision damage (see page 42), and can be used with favored enemy damage bonuses. Since a weaponlike spell isn’t actually a weapon, Strength modifiers on damage rolls and magical effects that increase weapon damage don’t increase damage from a weaponlike spell unless the spell’s description says otherwise.

The damage is a function of the hit, not of the spell itself.


Yes, like I said, many effects specifically say "weapon damage" and do not apply to spells. However, Knowledge Devotion does not have that restriction.


???

Fully agree with Tro. It says damage rolls. You're using the description for weaponlike spells to try to make some other point that isn't backed up by the text you quoted.

[Thurbane]

I'm definitely in agreement with "damage rolls" not being a term restricted exclusively to weapons or weapon-like spells. There's a "damage roll" for a Fireball, Magic Missile etc. as far as I'm concerned.

Like I said earlier, "damage roll" is not a defined game term as far as I can tell.

Many things state "weapon damage roll", meaning that weapons are just one type of damage roll.

[emeraldstreak]

As far as I can tell RAW recognizes three situations:

1. Things that say "weapon damage rolls'. Additional rules exist to allow some of these to affect melee and ranged touch spells.

2. Things that say "damage rolls" but require an attack. Example: Sneak Attack.

3. Things that say "damage rolls". Example: Knowledge Devotion.

[Yogibear41]

My dm let me apply it to each missile same with scorching ray, but I was playing a solo wizard at lowish levels so it was kill or be killed more or less.

[Crake]

At my table, a "damage roll" is any discreet packet of damage, typically noted as such because it can be resisted separately from other damage dealt. For example, you will see monster stat blocks say "slam 1d6+3 melee plus 1d6 fire" those are two separate damage rolls. The first can be resisted by regular old damage reduction, and the second by fire resistance. A magic missile, against a hypothetical opponent with force resistance (or when augmented by force missile mage to have a standard energy type), can have each missile independantly resisted, and thus each missile is it's own damage roll. A sword with frost, fire and electricity on it likewise has 4 damage rolls, one for the sword, and then one for each of the energy enchantments on the sword. Knowledge devotion would thus apply to each of these rolls.

The most obvious example of something that isn't a separate damage roll would be sneak attack, as it is simply a modifier to the original attack, and the damage added is resisted together with the main attack, not separately.

[Yael]

At my table, a "damage roll" is any discreet packet of damage, typically noted as such because it can be resisted separately from other damage dealt. For example, you will see monster stat blocks say "slam 1d6+3 melee plus 1d6 fire" those are two separate damage rolls. The first can be resisted by regular old damage reduction, and the second by fire resistance. A magic missile, against a hypothetical opponent with force resistance (or when augmented by force missile mage to have a standard energy type), can have each missile independantly resisted, and thus each missile is it's own damage roll. A sword with frost, fire and electricity on it likewise has 4 damage rolls, one for the sword, and then one for each of the energy enchantments on the sword. Knowledge devotion would thus apply to each of these rolls.

The most obvious example of something that isn't a separate damage roll would be sneak attack, as it is simply a modifier to the original attack, and the damage added is resisted together with the main attack, not separately.

I agree with Crake. A damage roll from a spell isn't automatically converted into the weaponlike-spell rules, so it should apply for each missile (in MM's case).

Casters are weak anyway, why aren't they allowed to have nice things?


This post, blue is used for sarcasm.

[Aotrs Commander]

My ruling is that if it doesn't require an attack roll, you never get any bonus to spell damage unless you are explictly a Warmage and have warmage edge. Fireball otherwise never gets any extra damage to it; you have different options for spells like Sudden Empower and Sudden Maximise, you're not getting free extra bonus on top...

(I mean, you are already firing all your maximised Scorching Rays and Ice Lances and Acid Splashes that are also on fire already amnd with extra bonuses on top, thanks to Mr Bard, don't push it...)

[SirNibbles]

My ruling is that if it doesn't require an attack roll, you never get any bonus to spell damage unless you are explictly a Warmage and have warmage edge. Fireball otherwise never gets any extra damage to it; you have different options for spells like Sudden Empower and Sudden Maximise, you're not getting free extra bonus on top...

(I mean, you are already firing all your maximised Scorching Rays and Ice Lances and Acid Splashes that are also on fire already amnd with extra bonuses on top, thanks to Mr Bard, don't push it...)

As long as you let your players know in advance that you're changing RAW, it's fine. I guess Bane Magic (Heroes of Horror, page 119/Lords of Madness, page 178) doesn't work at your table either.

[Aotrs Commander]

As long as you let your players know in advance that you're changing RAW, it's fine. I guess Bane Magic (Heroes of Horror, page 119/Lords of Madness, page 178) doesn't work at your table either.

Firstly, I don't personally regard that interpretation as RAW1; none of my group would ever have read it that way, to the point this thread is the first time I have even considered that it COULD be interpreted in that way. So, if it was intended to be that by the writers, then it should have been written absolutely explictly; as it is, as Thurbane said, it is open to interpretation. It is, something I discovered to look out for when I published my own rules, at BEST "implied, but not stated." (Which is neither RAW nor RAI. RAIBNS?)

Secondly, as those two books are not on the list of sources in use (except for the Dread Necromancer class itself, which I extracted), actually, you would be tacitly corrent in your guess, albeit that "it doesn't work because it doesn't exist."



(Sidenote: If you play in one of my games, you can be sure that RAW will already been dramatically changed in dozens of entirely not-open-to-interpretation ways before you start; yes, though, for the record, you are informed that this is the case when you are introduced to the group, as it will be mentioned that "this is a hybrid version of 3.5/PF so heavily modified we call it 3.Aotrs" or something. So if my interpretation of that bothered you, you would likely have gone insane after the first four seconds of session start already...)



1You are free to disagree, of course, but to pre-empt an arguement; frankly, I've procrastinated enough on stuff I should be dooing today to get into a debate about it.

[SirNibbles]

Firstly, I don't personally regard that interpretation as RAW1; none of my group would ever have read it that way, to the point this thread is the first time I have even considered that it COULD be interpreted in that way. So, if it was intended to be that by the writers, then it should have been written absolutely explictly; as it is, as Thurbane said, it is open to interpretation. It is, something I discovered to look out for when I published my own rules, at BEST "implied, but not stated." (Which is neither RAW nor RAI. RAIBNS?

1You are free to disagree, of course, but to preempt an argument; frankly, I've procrastinated enough on stuff I should be doing today to get into a debate about it.

Of course there can be interpretation, but it has to be based on what's written in the rules. A lot of the interpretation I've seen from this thread does not involve that, or involves unrelated rules, or is directly contrary to written rules:



I would tend to handle it the same way KD applies to Spiritual Weapon. Spiritual Weapon is explicit that none of your feats apply to it and underlines that it strikes as a spell, not a weapon, so Knowledge Devotion doesn't apply.

I think there's also a bit of a fluff argument for keeping KD out of Magic Missile. Magic Missile is said to "unerringly strike a target" it's directed at. Ergo, your own personal insights into that creature's movements and behaviours garnered by Knowledge Devotion don't make one lick of difference to the spell's accuracy, it hits every time. The damage rolls represent a variable-sized packet of energy which isn't made any more damaging by Knowledge Devotion because Magic Missile always unerringly hits - in effect the spell decides for itself what part of the body it's going to smash into, you have no more part in that than a cleric casting Spiritual Weapon gets to choose where on the opponent's body the weapon swings at.

1. Spiritual Weapon makes a floating force weapon that attacks your enemies. It doesn't benefit from your feats because it doesn't know to Cleave or use Weapon Focus. However, using a spell that specifically says feats don't affect it as an example of why other spells shouldn't be affected makes no sense.

2. Your fluff argument makes sense, but it's still not RAW. Maybe you know how to shape that force to be more effective against that creature type thanks to Knowledge Devotion. Magic 40mm Missile might be better against some creatures and Magic 84mm Missile might be better against others. It's better to fit the fluff to RAW than change RAW to fit the fluff.


Wait wait wait. Since when do things that modify damage rolls modify spell damage :smallconfused:

"Damage roll" is only ever used in terms of weapon attacks...

Am I missing something?

Here are a few examples of damage rolls being used for things other than weapon attacks:
"His turning damage roll..." - Player's Handbook, page 159
"For example, if the damage roll from a chill metal spell indicates 5 points of cold damage..." - Player's Handbook, page 209
"For example, if the damage roll from a heat metal spell..." - Player's Handbook, page 239

Also, there are multiple instances of rules specifically calling out weapon damage rolls vs just damage rolls.


Stuff that applies to damage rolls will apply to weaponlike spells. These are typically defined as spells that require an attack roll.

So KD won't work with MM. If you instead cast Scorching Ray, there's an argument (IMO valid one) to apply KD to all rays from the Scorching Ray.

You're right that it will apply to weaponlike spells. However, there is nothing that says it cannot also apply to non-weaponlike spells:


I agree with Crake. A damage roll from a spell isn't automatically converted into the weaponlike-spell rules, so it should apply for each missile (in MM's case).

__


The damage is a function of the hit, not of the spell itself.

What page of what book is that on?

[weckar]

Yes, like I said, many effects specifically say "weapon damage" and do not apply to spells. However, Knowledge Devotion does not have that restriction.I thought weapon damage was meant to exclude natural weapons and non-proficient unarmed attacks? Not spells?

[Remuko]

I thought weapon damage was meant to exclude natural weapons and non-proficient unarmed attacks? Not spells?

Not that I'm aware of. Unarmed attacks (proficient or not) and natural weapons, are still "weapons" and are included. Again, afaik.