Why Isn't Magic Missile A Cantrip?

[Amechra]

One of the more iconic images - to me, at least - of a D&D Wizard is plinking away with good ol' Magic Missile. Heck, they even made it an at-will in 4e, which I think was a good decision.

So why did they push it back up to a 1st level spell for 5e? I'm aware that there probably isn't a publicly available answer to that... but I'm still curious.

[strangebloke]

The same reason we do anything in DND.

Its tradition.

Seriously, that's why. Its a first level spell. So its not a cantrip. Its I C O N I C.

[Kane0]

'Cuz it's auto-hit.

[JNAProductions]

The same reason we do anything in DND.

Its tradition.

Seriously, that's why. Its a first level spell. So its not a cantrip. Its I C O N I C.

Cynical answer.


'Cuz it's auto-hit.

Balanced answer.

I've tried to downgrade Magic Missile into a cantrip, and it's hard to do that while maintaining its auto-hit nature. To be balanced, it ends up doing something like 1d3 damage a tier, which is... Not very impressive.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

One of the more iconic images - to me, at least - of a D&D Wizard is plinking away with good ol' Magic Missile. Heck, they even made it an at-will in 4e, which I think was a good decision.

So why did they push it back up to a 1st level spell for 5e? I'm aware that there probably isn't a publicly available answer to that... but I'm still curious.

I've seen tables allow a Cantrip version of Magic Missile.

It auto hits but each missile does 1 damage. When you get higher levels, you get additional missiles that each do 1 damage.

Wizards can't really afford to always be plunking MM cantrip as it doesn't do enough damage to stop something from walking up and killing the wizard... But when you need to do damage to pick off a weakling it's amazing.

[Bjarkmundur]

I argue that Magic Missile was actually stronger in 4e, because of the minion mechanic.

[Feddlefew]

The no-save auto hit and multi-target scaling prevents it from being a cantrip, IMO. Being able to just ignore cover can be very useful at low levels, depending on your DM.

My understand is that, at least in previous editions, nothing stopped you from sending magic missiles around corners if you have a way to "see" around the corner. This goes up there with permanent, invisible fog clouds in terms of cheese, so YMMV.

[NNescio]

The no-save auto hit and multi-target scaling prevents it from being a cantrip, IMO. Being able to just ignore cover can be very useful at low levels, depending on your DM.

My understand is that, at least in previous editions, nothing stopped you from sending magic missiles around corners if you have a way to "see" around the corner. This goes up there with permanent, invisible fog clouds in terms of cheese, so YMMV.

Line of Effect is a thing starting from 3E (5E calls it "A Clear Path to the Target"). Having line of sight is immaterial; if you can't draw an unobstructed line from the caster to the target, the spell can't be cast. Magic Missile is still subject to the same limitations, even if fluffwise it can robotech a bit.

You can't ignore cover with MM if the cover would block LoE. (But you do ignore cover bonuses if the cover isn't enough to stop you from targeting.)

It would work for AD&D 2e and earlier though (IIRC, unless there is some general rule I missed), because those versions only require sight.

(Of course, I think you were thinking about 3.5e, because you mentioned "permanent invisible fog clouds", which requires the poorly-worded Invisible Spell metamagic to pull off.)

[Feddlefew]

Line of Effect is a thing starting from 3E (5E calls it "A Clear Path to the Target"). Having line of sight is immaterial; if you can't draw an unobstructed line from the caster to the target, the spell can't be cast. Magic Missile is still subject to the same limitations, even if fluffwise it can robotech a bit.

You can't ignore cover with MM if the cover would block LoE. (But you do ignore cover bonuses if the cover isn't enough to stop you from targeting.)

It would work for AD&D 2e and earlier though (IIRC, unless there is some general rule I missed), because those versions only require sight.

(Of course, I think you were thinking about 3.5e, because you mentioned "permanent invisible fog clouds", which requires the poorly-worded Invisible Spell metamagic to pull off.)

Yeah, that sounds about right. I have played or ran every edition between AD&D and 5e, so sometimes the rules get jumbled.

(I was under the impression that "permanent invisible fog clouds" trick worked off the fact that a conjured fog cloud is an actual, touchable object, and therefor a viable target for the invisibility spell. I've never used them as a player, only as a DM for high level dungeons.)

[sithlordnergal]

As people have mentioned, the auto-hit of Magic Missile mixed with the auto scaling makes it extremely difficult to balance. If we did make it a cantrip, what would the damage be like? 1d4+1 per bolt, and an extra bolt every time your cantrips scale? Well, now you have an auto-hitting Eldritch Blast that deals between 2 and 5 damage per bolt. Making the damage 1d3 makes it a bit too weak, while 1d4 is still just a little bit too strong.

But lets see what happens if we make the damage a flat 1d4 Force damage per bolt. What happens with it in the hands of different classes? Well, because its a cantrip, Sorcerers can cast it back to back with Quick Spell, kind of like how they can with Eldritch Blast, only now its an auto hit. Evocation Wizards can add their Intelligence modifier to it. Bards will love to take it because free easy damage. And Warlocks probably won't bother with it cause they have Eldritch Blast. And any class mix that focuses on maximizing how many Eldritch Blasts you can use in a single round will benefit from this.

Now how about counterplay? Since cantrips can be used at all times, they tend to be an all or nothing affair. If you miss your attack roll, it does nothing. If the target makes their saving throw, the cantrip does nothing. But what about magic missile? Well, the normal spell requires you to see your target, and can be stopped by a Shield spell. So if it were made into a cantrip, the only way to avoid it would be to spend a 1st level or higher spell, be unseen, have immunity to cantrips, or have immunity to Force damage. Outside of that, this cantrip will always have some sort of effect, even if it is only 1 point of damage.

[Christew]

Everyone is right on with auto hit being the problem. Even at 1 damage per missile, it being a cantrip opens up the opportunity for Magic Initiate interactions with things such as Hex, Hunter's Mark, etc that yield damage on each hit. Dropping 3d6 auto hit without expending a slot is a lot.

Take away auto hit and it is not really Magic Missile anymore. 1st level seems fair. Not a daily use thing, but being able to guarantee 3d4+3 damage on a fleeing enemy at level 1 can be huge.

[Damon_Tor]

It was pretty clear they were trying to distance themselves from 4e as much as possible when they made 5e: any change made by 4e was reverted by default. Even good changes. What little survived was carefully renamed and hidden as much as possible, but 4e's magic missile didn't make the cut.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

It was pretty clear they were trying to distance themselves from 4e as much as possible when they made 5e: any change made by 4e was reverted by default. Even good changes. What little survived was carefully renamed and hidden as much as possible, but 4e's magic missile didn't make the cut.

This is hilarious actually.

5e took a majority of 4e and just made it look like 3e.

Which 4e was a lot of Unearthed Arcana stuff from 3e...

But still 5e has more stuff in common with 4e than 3e.

[brainface]

Why doesn't 1d4+1 damage per tier work as scaling damage?
That's an average of 3 damage, firebolt is an average of 4.5 damage, but can miss. if firebolt hits about 2/3 of the time, that's equivalent damage, right? Are you expected to miss more than 1/3 of your attacks with a cantrip?

[JNAProductions]

Why doesn't 1d4+1 damage per tier work as scaling damage?
That's an average of 3 damage, firebolt is an average of 4.5 damage, but can miss. if firebolt hits about 2/3 of the time, that's equivalent damage, right? Are you expected to miss more than 1/3 of your attacks with a cantrip?

Firebolt does 5.5 damage on a hit. Average hit rate is on an 8, for 65%, or 3.575 DPR per tier.

Magic Missile at 1d4+1 does 3.5 on a hit, which always happens. So at first blush they seem equal.

But here's the thing-Magic Missile has 1) a better damage type, 2) multiple missiles instead of one shot, and 3) auto-hits.

Each of those merits a reduction in power-ESPECIALLY number 2.

So, Force instead of Fire, drop it to just 1d4.
Auto-hits is a nice "rider"-or at least equivalent to one-so drop it to 1d3.
And multiple missiles means 1d2.

I wouldn't be overly upset at the balance if it stayed 1d3, but it just doesn't feel good.

[denthor]

The no-save auto hit and multi-target scaling prevents it from being a cantrip, IMO. Being able to just ignore cover can be very useful at low levels, depending on your DM.

My understand is that, at least in previous editions, nothing stopped you from sending magic missiles around corners if you have a way to "see" around the corner. This goes up there with permanent, invisible fog clouds in terms of cheese, so YMMV.

Cost 25 years ago I read dungeon let's see if I can recreate it.

You open the door and 30 feet ahead of you are 2 Zombies. That is what you see

In reality the room went this way

30 feet ahead were the reflection of two zombies in a mirror.

The corridor took a 90-degree turn with the mirror propped at a 45 degree angle approximately in the corner. The zombies were 20 feet down the corridor pass the 90-degree turn

The mage shot magic missiles into the mirror since the mirror was an inanimate object it took no damage from the magic missiles.

If an actual Arrow, Club or anything that could break the mirror was tossed at it you heard the breaking(glass being a rare subject you couldn't say glass). The correct response was the zombies disappear

[Foff]

Heck, make it a cantrip but make it shoot just one missile, increasing +1 damage at every tier (1d4+2 at 5, 1d4+3 at 11 etc)

[lperkins2]

Heck, make it a cantrip but make it shoot just one missile, increasing +1 damage at every tier (1d4+2 at 5, 1d4+3 at 11 etc)

Then it isn't the iconic magic missile anymore.

Do note that, since it auto-hits, it is not a spell attack, as such, it does not interact with attack riders like Hex or Hunters Mark. That doesn't help much from a balance perspective, but it is worth noting.

[LentilNinja]

I'm sure in the Next playtest I tried once, it was. I remember using a d4, but I don't remember if it had a +1 or not.

Odds are as above, the more content was added to the game the more it was required to raise it as a spell for balance.

[ShikomeKidoMi]

It's still a 1st level spell, just because you don't have literally infinite casts doesn't mean you can't hit people with it a lot over the course of an adventuring day. It's not like you have drastically less casts of magic missile than before.

[JumboWheat01]

I mean, high-level Wizards can sorta make it a Cantrip if they want to, with the ability to pump it with spell slots for more oomph if they want missile spam.

[RSP]

Then it isn't the iconic magic missile anymore.

Do note that, since it auto-hits, it is not a spell attack, as such, it does not interact with attack riders like Hex or Hunters Mark. That doesn't help much from a balance perspective, but it is worth noting.

HM is only for Weapon Attacks so it doesn’t interact with MM. However, Hex could work with MM, RAW, depending on how you read it, since Hex doesn’t refer to Weapon Attacks or Spell Attacks (game terms), but states “you deal an extra 1d6 necrotic damage to the target whenever you hit it with an attack.”

I’m not saying anyone needs to play it that way, but MM is an “attack” in common English (and “attack” used this way in the PHB, as well as being used as a game term), and, as you said yourself, it (auto-)hits. So MM could work with Hex, RAW.

[Mongobear]

Compared to other cantrips that have come out, there's nothing too strong about a Cantrip version.

1d4+1 at 1st level, auto hit, etc. Each tier gives an additional missile for the same damage.

At max, it's 4d4+4 at 17th level?

[Solunaris]

HM is only for Weapon Attacks so it doesn’t interact with MM. However, Hex could work with MM, RAW, depending on how you read it, since Hex doesn’t refer to Weapon Attacks or Spell Attacks (game terms), but states “you deal an extra 1d6 necrotic damage to the target whenever you hit it with an attack.”

I’m not saying anyone needs to play it that way, but MM is an “attack” in common English (and “attack” used this way in the PHB, as well as being used as a game term), and, as you said yourself, it (auto-)hits. So MM could work with Hex, RAW.

If Magic Missile is an attack then so is Fireball by the same logic.

[RSP]

If Magic Missile is an attack then so is Fireball by the same logic.

That could be argued, though, I imagine, additionally, you’d need to determine if fire can “hit” someone. I could easily be convinced that to say “I was burned by fire” is a logical statement, however, I’m not sure I’d be using the word correctly if I said “I was ‘hit’ by fire.”

MM is described as ‘darts’, which can logically be used to hit something. I’m not sure fire expanding from a point, but which lacks any sort of force or explosion, can be described as a hit.

[MaxWilson]

If Magic Missile is an attack then so is Fireball by the same logic.

And Vicious Mockery even moreso. :)

But 5E has a very specific technical definition of "attack", which is anything with an attack roll.

[RSP]

And Vicious Mockery even moreso. :)

But 5E has a very specific technical definition of "attack", which is anything with an attack roll.

Not quite: look at Shove and Grapple, each being an attack without an attack roll.

For instance, succeeding on a Shove, RAW, would interact with Hex (you “hit” with an “attack”).

[NNescio]

Not quite: look at Shove and Grapple, each being an attack without an attack roll.

For instance, succeeding on a Shove, RAW, would interact with Hex (you “hit” with an “attack”).

Shove and Grapple are special melee attacks (so they count as attacks even with an attack roll), but they still use an opposed ability check, so they never actually "hit" or "miss". Instead, you "succeed" or "fail".

This is supported by the SAC:


Does a grapple or a shove trigger the Tempest cleric’s Wrath of the Storm or a Battle Master’s Riposte? The answer to both questions is no. The grappling and shoving options (PH, 195) don’t result in a hit or a miss.

—Sage Advice Compendium (2019), p.11

Edit:
As for the general case on what counts as an attack, refer to PHB-pp.193–194:


MAKING AN ATTACK

Whether you're striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or making an attack roll as part of a spell, an attack has a simple structure.


1. Choose a target. Pick a target within your attack's range: a creature, an object, or a location.

2. Determine modifiers. The DM determines whether the target has cover and whether you have advantage or disadvantage against the target. In addition, spells, special abilities, and other effects can apply penalties or bonuses to your attack roll.

3. Resolve the attack. You make the attack roll. On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage.

If there's ever any question whether something you're doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack.

What constitutes an attack is explicitly defined here. This is the general rule; anything that requires an attack roll is an attack. The grapple/shoving rules are special exceptions to the general rule, because they are explicitly called out as being "special melee attacks" despite not using attack rolls. But magic missile contains no such language, and neither does it use an attack roll; ergo it's not an attack. RAW is patently clear in regard to this.

(And if somehow there's a game effect that relies on an attack roll but explicitly calls it out as "not being an attack", then it's not an attack either because specific beats general. But absent that specific clause the general rule applies.)

Also note what constitutes a "hit" is also implicitly defined under the stepwise procedure for "Making an Attack".

Edit2: Shadowmonked.

[diplomancer]

"If there’s ever any question whether something you’re
doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you’re making an attack roll, you’re making an attack."

Magic missile is not an attack. You could make a case that, since shoving and grappling are defined as a "special melee attack", this is a "specific beats general" situation and they count as attacks even though they do not require attack rolls, but there is no rule support for magic missiles as attacks.

[NNescio]

And here's a JC tweet that supports the above:



@Kassuhday making a loud noise doesn't end the invisibility spell. Attacking does. Does knocking over a lamp count as an attack?

— The Inexperienced DM (@inexperienceddm) February 28, 2017

An attack involves an attack roll or doing something that the rules call an attack, like grappling or shoving. #DnD https://t.co/ccEfVUTaL1

— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) February 28, 2017

And another tweet that covers Magic Missile explicitly:




@JeremyECrawford if I cast Magic Missile at a Hexed target, does it take an extra 1d6 necrotic, or 3d6 extra? or none, because Magic Missile is not an ‘attack’?

— Mavalanche (@aus_maverick) December 8, 2016

Magic missile isn’t an attack. #DnD https://t.co/i7veBQatmX

— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) December 8, 2016

[RSP]

Shove and Grapple are special melee attacks (so they count as attacks even with an attack roll), but they still use an opposed ability check, so they never actually "hit" or "miss". Instead, you "succeed" or "fail".

This is supported by the SAC:


SAC is meaningless in a RAW discussion.

RAW, Shove and Grappke are attacks.

“Hit” is not necessarily a game term: nothing in the write up indicates it’s supposed to be anything other than its ‘common English’ definition (similarly with “miss”). Further, what’s written in the PHB (“When you make an attack, your attack roll determines whether the attack hits or misses.”) doesn’t cover what happens when you make an attack that doesn’t involve an attack roll, which we’ve already agreed exists in the RAW. [edit: also note, if “hit” is a game term, then it means MM is an attack, as MM tells us the darts “hit”]

I’m not sure how you say a Shove doesn’t hit when a character succeeds in knocking an opponent Prone or in pushing them back. That just doesn’t make any sense: DM: “You shove the Orc Prone with your Shield Master Bonus Action Shove.” Player: “So I hit him with my shield?” DM: “No, you did not.” Player: “Then how did I shove him?”

Reading the RAW in a way that doesn’t make any sense, particularly when a perfectly reasonable reading exists that does make sense, isn’t really a good way to try and interpret the RAW. Granted, sometimes there isn’t a reading of the RAW that makes sense, but this isn’t one of those cases.

[RSP]

And here's a JC tweet that supports the above:



And another tweet that covers Magic Missile explicitly:

I’m not sure you understand the difference between RAW and, say, RAI. RAW doesn’t care about tweets or SA, only what’s written in the books.

[RSP]

"If there’s ever any question whether something you’re
doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you’re making an attack roll, you’re making an attack."

Magic missile is not an attack. You could make a case that, since shoving and grappling are defined as a "special melee attack", this is a "specific beats general" situation and they count as attacks even though they do not require attack rolls, but there is no rule support for magic missiles as attacks.

Again, attack being used as it’s common English definition, rather than a game term, does support. Again, not saying anyone needs to play it this way, but the system clearly disputes its own “rule” in this regard. There are attacks that don’t involve attack rolls.

[diplomancer]

Again, attack being used as it’s common English definition, rather than a game term, does support. Again, not saying anyone needs to play it this way, but the system clearly disputes its own “rule” in this regard. There are attacks that don’t involve attack rolls.

In common English, saying mean things about someone is also an attack. It would be a hard sell for a DM that if a warlock says 10 mean but true things about someone, that he can now add 10 d6 damage (since they were all hits).

In D&D RAW, there are attacks that don't involve attack rolls. The rules say specifically which ones are it. If they don't say it, they are not attacks.

[Damon_Tor]

Again, attack being used as it’s common English definition, rather than a game term, does support. Again, not saying anyone needs to play it this way, but the system clearly disputes its own “rule” in this regard. There are attacks that don’t involve attack rolls.

The game can make specific exceptions to its own general rules without invalidating those general rules.

[RSP]

In common English, saying mean things about someone is also an attack. It would be a hard sell for a DM that if a warlock says 10 mean but true things about someone, that he can now add 10 d6 damage (since they were all hits).

In D&D RAW, there are attacks that don't involve attack rolls. The rules say specifically which ones are it. If they don't say it, they are not attacks.

I’m not sure “Attack Roll=Attack” as the RAW says, is the same thing as “All attacks have attack rolls”, particularly since we know that is a false statement.


The game can make specific exceptions to its own general rules without invalidating those general rules.

Indeed they can.