Is Magic Missile OP for breaking concentration?

[Verble]

According this this Sage Advice https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/04/22/do-you-roll-concentration-for-every-instance-of-damage-taken/

Magic Missile forces a concentration check for each missile. Which is great for targeting concentrating enemies but sucks as a caster yourself facing 3 DC10 Concentration checks. It definitely increases the strength of the Shield spell.

What are your thoughts and how do you run it in your games?

[Mikal]

Shield trivializes it to be a threat against most

As for the clerics and the like, they usually have better con saves due to higher con due to being closer to melee.

Add in resilient:con and warcaster, and for warlock eldritch mind and I don’t see a few dc 10 concentration checks (which may not even happen thanks to shield) as a big deal

[Grey Watcher]

Problem is that according to this Sage Advice, the missiles all together count as one: https://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/10/03/magic-missile-one-source/

Still, assuming we do use Crawford's interpretation, it does appear to make both Magic Missile and Shield must-haves (not that they were bad choices to begin with).

[SLOTHRPG95]

I run it this way, and it doesn't seem to cause any problems. It makes Magic Missile a bit better, but unless you're running a game filled with enemy casters, then the difference is negligible. Also, FWIW, against high-Con casters (or those proficient in Con saves), hitting with multiple DC 10 Con saves is generally not as efficient as forcing a single, high DC save.

[MaxWilson]

Forcing a bunch of DC 10 concentration saves is not OP.

[BoxANT]

hold person works even better

[sambojin]

Makes the Dragon constellation of the Stars druid a bit better if you run it as multiple DC10 saves. Can't fail due to the auto-10.

Later on, you can flick between different constellations as you like, so you can put your MM shield up whenever, and only lose a bit of Archer spam.

[Witty Username]

OP? Probably not. Pricelessly funny against mages without warcaster? Hard Yes.
Or more specifically if 14 or less con, you have as much chance as the average monk has of stunning a target. And mages tend to have lower con than average. Effective, depends on what they are concentrating on.

[LudicSavant]

According this this Sage Advice https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/04/22/do-you-roll-concentration-for-every-instance-of-damage-taken/

Magic Missile forces a concentration check for each missile. Which is great for targeting concentrating enemies but sucks as a caster yourself facing 3 DC10 Concentration checks. It definitely increases the strength of the Shield spell.

What are your thoughts and how do you run it in your games?

If the Concentration checks weren't separate, you'd go from "multiple DC10 checks" to "one DC50 check" if you were getting hit by a Hexvoker. I'll take the DC10s, thanks. :smalltongue:

[Verble]

If the Concentration checks weren't separate, you'd go from "multiple DC10 checks" to "one DC50 check" if you were getting hit by a Hexvoker. I'll take the DC10s, thanks. :smalltongue:

My understanding is that Hex only applies to attack rolls, which Magic Missile does not have. This is up for debate as the wording is not clear and the rulings I've seen are inconclusive.

Empowered Evocation says that the damage bonus applies to one damage roll of a spell, not multiple rolls.

That was the combo you were looking at, yes?

[LudicSavant]

My understanding is that Hex only applies to attack rolls, which Magic Missile does not have.

Yes, Hex does nothing for Magic Missile. Which is why Hexvokers rarely take that spell.


That was the combo you were looking at, yes?

Nope! Hexvokers use Hexblade and Hexblade's Curse, not Hex.


Empowered Evocation says that the damage bonus applies to one damage roll of a spell, not multiple rolls.

That's correct. Which is why it works with Magic Missile. (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/47140/how-does-the-evocation-wizards-empowered-evocation-feature-work-with-the-magic)

[Verble]

Yes, Hex does nothing for Magic Missile. Which is why Hexvokers rarely take that spell.



Nope! Hexvokers use Hexblade and Hexblade's Curse, not Hex.



That's correct. Which is why it works with Magic Missile. (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/47140/how-does-the-evocation-wizards-empowered-evocation-feature-work-with-the-magic)

Interesting. I've looked up the build and it appears to be called the Nuclear Wizard. I'll have to add that to my future character list.

[LudicSavant]

Interesting. I've looked up the build and it appears to be called the Nuclear Wizard. I'll have to add that to my future character list.

I've got one in my Eclectic Builds thread. (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=23998967&postcount=170)

Hexvokers are extremely effective, and not just because of their damage. They also have some unusually mean control tricks (even by Wizard standards) and can make solid retribution tanks or off-tanks in a pinch, too. Versatility is their strength.

My experience was also that I basically was never running out of level 1 slots for Shield, Absorb Elements, etc, simply because you get 4 + 1/short rest (from pact slots) + Arcane Recovery. That's a lot of level 1 slots. And you've got options like Contingent Armor of Agathys to throw in there. Add that onto the fact that enemies struggle to get in actions against you (either because of your control or just how short they live) and they're quite difficult to kill.

[Verble]

I've got one in my Eclectic Builds thread. (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=23998967&postcount=170)

Hexvokers are extremely effective, and not just because of their damage. They also have some unusually mean control tricks (even by Wizard standards) and can make solid retribution tanks or off-tanks in a pinch, too. Versatility is their strength.

My experience was also that I basically was never running out of level 1 slots for Shield, Absorb Elements, etc, simply because you get 4 + 1/level (from pact slots) + Arcane Recovery. That's a lot of level 1 slots. And you've got options like Contingent Armor of Agathys to throw in there. Add that onto the fact that enemies struggle to get in actions against you (either because of your control or just how short they live) and they're quite difficult to kill.

Oh, thanks for that thread. I'm actually playing a game with the arcana cleric build from that thread. Which has been a blast. That's where my magic Missile question came up. I'll have to think how to fluff a hexblade/evoker.

[Pex]

I have seen the tactic used in play but not overly so. Spellcasters are using other spells to try to break concentration that are more potent than Magic Missile, and sometimes the warrior/rogue breaks it before their turn. By anecdotal evidence of not being the goto tactic used all the time, for now I don't think it is.

[Verble]

It's frustrating that they can't keep their rulings straight. One ruling says it's 3 concentration checks and one says since they all hit at once it just one check.

At my table we rules that 3 checks on an autohit, for a level one slot was a bit much, so we ruled it to be just the one check. Seems mostly fair.

[Gignere]

It's frustrating that they can't keep their rulings straight. One ruling says it's 3 concentration checks and one says since they all hit at once it just one check.

At my table we rules that 3 checks on an autohit, for a level one slot was a bit much, so we ruled it to be just the one check. Seems mostly fair.

At low levels 3 checks is OP but one check will become OP at higher levels because presumably you’ll add all the damage together before checking for concentration DC. An upcast MM can auto hit for some serious damage. At high levels 7 or 8 DC 10 concentration check is much easier to make than a DC 18+ Con save.

[Trafalgar]

I always thought it was one check until I saw a Zee Bashew video. Let me try and crunch the numbers.

Scenario: Magic Missile is cast against Wally the Wizard using a concentration spell. Let's give Wally a 14 Con for a +2 to the roll. What percent chance does Wally have of maintaining concentration?

Math: (21-8)/20 = .65

Math: [(21-8)/20]^3=27.5%

Math: [(21-8)/20]^4=17.9%

Math: [(21-8)/20]^5=11.6%

So the more missiles you through greatly increases the chance of breaking concentration. But even 5 missiles has an ~1/10 chance of not breaking concentration. So I like doing each roll individually because a Lvl 3 Magic Missile should have a greater chance of breaking concentration than a Lvl 1 version. What I don't like is all these dice rolls.

If my math is off, please let me know. It was never my best subject.

[Gignere]

I always thought it was one check until I saw a Zee Bashew video. Let me try and crunch the numbers.

Scenario: Magic Missile is cast against Wally the Wizard using a concentration spell. Let's give Wally a 14 Con for a +2 to the roll. What percent chance does Wally have of maintaining concentration?

Math: (21-8)/20 = .65

Math: [(21-8)/20]^3=27.5%

Math: [(21-8)/20]^4=17.9%

Math: [(21-8)/20]^5=11.6%

So the more missiles you through greatly increases the chance of breaking concentration. But even 5 missiles has an ~1/10 chance of not breaking concentration. So I like doing each roll individually because a Lvl 3 Magic Missile should have a greater chance of breaking concentration than a Lvl 1 version. What I don't like is all these dice rolls.

If my math is off, please let me know. It was never my best subject.

It’s off because it is only for low levels at high levels casters can get resilient con and may have a Paladin in the party and can easily have a +9/+10 to concentration saves so at that point it doesn’t matter if you need to make 3 - 10 dc 10 checks because you pass automatically. If MM is one check than it’s damage stack and can push a DC higher than 10 so it makes it not automatic pass.

[Jamesps]

In our game we would use it to break dominate/charm effects that gave a save when the target takes damage. We'd target our own party members for 3 free saves. That's more a higher level use though.

[SLOTHRPG95]

It’s off because it is only for low levels at high levels casters can get resilient con and may have a Paladin in the party and can easily have a +9/+10 to concentration saves so at that point it doesn’t matter if you need to make 3 - 10 dc 10 checks because you pass automatically. If MM is one check than it’s damage stack and can push a DC higher than 10 so it makes it not automatic pass.

Even without an automatic pass, the damage stacking can quickly cause an auto-fail. If you're a 10th level Evoker and expect to do around 59.5 points of damage with a 5th level MM, then it's always better to have it one check rather than seven. Anyone who can't auto-pass a DC 10 Con save will auto-fail a DC 29+ Con save, which you have a high probability of forcing. In fact, given that your floor for damage in this case is 49, and hence the floor DC is 24 (at which point the multi-hit is best off relative to single-hit), we can compare seven DC 10 Con saves vs. one DC 24 Con save as the limiting case in favor of multi-hit. In this case, anyone with less than a +4 on their Con save could still succeed on the seven DC 10s, but auto-fails the DC 24. On the high end, anyone with a +9 or higher auto-succeeds on all seven of the small saves, as previously discussed. So the only possible advantage is when targeting someone with a +4 to +8, who'd have a 5%-25% chance of making the single save. But with a +8 they still have about a 70% chance of making seven small saves (bigger than 25%), with a +7 they have about a 48% chance for the smalls (still bigger than 20%), etc. Even with a +4 they have around a 13% chance to make seven DC 10 saves, vs. a 5% chance for a single DC 24 save.

tl, dr; With higher-damage MM the advantage for breaking concentration would always go to lumped damage.

[Aimeryan]

Interesting. I've looked up the build and it appears to be called the Nuclear Wizard. I'll have to add that to my future character list.

Somewhat offtopic, however, I do wish to point out that the Nuclear Wizard uses the text in a way that does not quite pass. Here is the text of relevance:


You roll the damage die or dice, add any modifiers, and apply the damage to your target.


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.

I have bolded the relevant components for analysis. As you can see, a Damage Roll is made up of both rolling the damage and adding modifiers. The 'once for all of them' passage only refers to rolling the damage once for all, it does not apply to adding modifiers.

For Magic Missile with 5 missiles without this rule it would look like this, rolling each time (random numbers used for the rolls):

1d4 + 1 = [3] + 1
1d4 + 1 = [4] + 1
1d4 + 1 = [2] + 1
1d4 + 1 = [1] + 1
1d4 + 1 = [3] + 1

Sum = 4+5+3+2+4 = 19

With the rule it looks like this:

1d4 + 1 = [3] + 1
1d4 + 1 = [3] + 1
1d4 + 1 = [3] + 1
1d4 + 1 = [3] + 1
1d4 + 1 = [3] + 1

Sum = 4+4+4+4+4 = 20 <--- OR ---> 5*4 = 20

This is better for gameplay because you only have to do one roll the damage, which is much faster since rolling the dice takes up a fair bit of time, as does working out the Damage Roll for each with different results of the roll the damage. However, what if we have a modifier to one Damage Roll? Lets use a modifier that results in 5 added damage:

1d4 + 1 + Modifier = [3] + 1 + [5]
1d4 + 1 = [3] + 1
1d4 + 1 = [3] + 1
1d4 + 1 = [3] + 1
1d4 + 1 = [3] + 1

Sum = (5*4) + 5 = 25

It does not look like this:

Sum = 5*(4+5) = 45

This is because the modifier was applied to one Damage Roll in the add any modifiers step, and remember, the 'once for all them' passage does not apply to that as it only applies to the roll the damage step that comes beforehand.

Actually, it may not be offtopic; a lot of debate here is about how high the check would be if you do the dc check as one roll with Evokers, however, those numbers are based off the illegal MM. A 5th level MM cast by 10th level Evoker would deal ~30 damage on average, for a DC check of ~15 - that is not too high at 10th level.

[Galithar]

Somewhat offtopic, however, I do wish to point out that the Nuclear Wizard uses the text in a way that does not quite pass. Here is the text of relevance:





I have bolded the relevant components for analysis. As you can see, a Damage Roll is made up of both rolling the damage and adding modifiers. The 'once for all of them' passage only refers to rolling the damage once for all, it does not apply to adding modifiers.

For Magic Missile with 5 missiles without this rule it would look like this, rolling each time (random numbers used for the rolls):

1d4 + 1 = [3] + 1
1d4 + 1 = [4] + 1
1d4 + 1 = [2] + 1
1d4 + 1 = [1] + 1
1d4 + 1 = [3] + 1

Sum = 4+5+3+2+4 = 19

With the rule it looks like this:

1d4 + 1 = [3] + 1
1d4 + 1 = [3] + 1
1d4 + 1 = [3] + 1
1d4 + 1 = [3] + 1
1d4 + 1 = [3] + 1

Sum = 4+4+4+4+4 = 20 <--- OR ---> 5*4 = 20

This is better for gameplay because you only have to do one roll the damage, which is much faster since rolling the dice takes up a fair bit of time, as does working out the Damage Roll for each with different results of the roll the damage. However, what if we have a modifier to one Damage Roll? Lets use a modifier that results in 5 added damage:

1d4 + 1 + Modifier = [3] + 1 + [5]
1d4 + 1 = [3] + 1
1d4 + 1 = [3] + 1
1d4 + 1 = [3] + 1
1d4 + 1 = [3] + 1

Sum = (5*4) + 5 = 25

It does not look like this:

Sum = 5*(4+5) = 45

This is because the modifier was applied to one Damage Roll in the add any modifiers step, and remember, the 'once for all them' passage does not apply to that as it only applies to the roll the damage step that comes beforehand.

Actually, it may not be offtopic; a lot of debate here is about how high the check would be if you do the dc check as one roll with Evokers, however, those numbers are based off the illegal MM. A 5th level MM cast by 10th level Evoker would deal ~30 damage on average, for a DC check of ~15 - that is not too high at 10th level.

Except it does work as stated if you use the crappy JC ruling.

You roll the damage. You add the modifier. EACH MISSLE deals that much damage. It's a pretty tortured manipulation of the spell description in my opinion, but according to the JC ruling of one damage roll thats what it does.

[Gignere]

Except it does work as stated if you use the crappy JC ruling.

You roll the damage. You add the modifier. EACH MISSLE deals that much damage. It's a pretty tortured manipulation of the spell description in my opinion, but according to the JC ruling of one damage roll thats what it does.

It’s also how the VTT’s are set up for MM. so a lot of people playing on VTT’s default’s to JC’s ruling.

[Galithar]

It’s also how the VTT’s are set up for MM. so a lot of people playing on VTT’s default’s to JC’s ruling.

I'm unfamiliar with the acronym VTT?

[Gignere]

I'm unfamiliar with the acronym VTT?

Virtual Table Top

[BloodSnake'sCha]

Magic missiles stop being effective in breaking concentration when the enemies have +9 or more to the con save.

[Galithar]

Virtual Table Top

I feel dumb now lol I should have got that.

[Aimeryan]

Except it does work as stated if you use the crappy JC ruling.

You roll the damage. You add the modifier. EACH MISSLE deals that much damage. It's a pretty tortured manipulation of the spell description in my opinion, but according to the JC ruling of one damage roll thats what it does.

JC's rulings are not official. Furthermore, if I recall correctly (may need to fetch the relevant tweets), JC's comments do not actually equate rolling the damage once as applying modifiers to all Damage Rolls, which are different things. Instead, he simply reiterates that you roll for the damage once, which is nothing at all to do with modifiers.

A lot of confusion arises here from people thinking Damage Rolls are the same exact thing as rolling for damage, and that therefore anything that applies to a single Damage Roll applies equalling to a single rolling for damage, which can then be spread by the 'once for all' rule.

For this analogy, instead of 'car' I will use the phrase 'battery car' because it is a car that uses a battery. Also, instead of 'battery' I will use the phrase 'car battery' because it is a battery for a car. I am doing this because there is confusion between 'damage roll' and 'rolling for damage', despite being quite different orders of the same words and having different meanings.

Bob's company owns a fleet of electric battery cars all of the same make - they all use the same generic components specifications, including car batteries and driving seats. Each battery car is given to a different driver, of which they make it their own, but the company only actually uses one driver at any time operating in rotating shifts. You are a new driver, however, unfortunately they don't have any spare battery cars at the moment! Bob informs you that for now you may take any battery car out to drive, however, instead of paying for separate car batteries for each battery car, the company uses the same single car battery that is passed around. One of the battery cars has a custom upgraded driving seat, which is usual. You then proceed to take out and use this same single custom driving seat for each battery car saying that because Bob said each battery car can use the same single car battery that this allows you to also use the same single driving seat - which is blantantly not the case!

Now lets look at something like Evoker's Empowered Evocation:


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

Note how the text uses 'damage roll', not 'roll for damage'.

[Valmark]

JC's rulings are not official. Furthermore, if I recall correctly (may need to fetch the relevant tweets), JC's comments do not actually equate rolling the damage once as applying modifiers to all Damage Rolls, which are different things. Instead, he simply reiterates that you roll for the damage once, which is nothing at all to do with modifiers.

A lot of confusion arises here from people thinking Damage Rolls are the same exact thing as rolling for damage, and that therefore anything that applies to a single Damage Roll applies equalling to a single rolling for damage, which can then be spread by the 'once for all' rule.

An analogy:

Bob's company owns a fleet of electric cars all of the same make - they all use the same generic components specifications, including batteries and seats. Bob informs you that you can take any car out for a drive, however, instead of paying for separate batteries for each, the company uses the same single battery that is passed around. You then proceed to take out and use the same single driving seat for each car saying that because Bob said each car can use the same single battery that this allows you to also use the same single seat - which is blantantly not the case.

Now lets write that out again, however, instead of 'car' I will use the phrase 'battery car' because it is a car that uses a battery. Also, instead of 'battery' I will use the phrase 'car battery' because it is a battery for a car. Lets see how confusing this may become:

Bob's company owns a fleet of electric battery cars all of the same make - they all use the same generic components specifications, including car batteries and seats. Bob informs you that you can take any battery car out for a drive, however, instead of paying for separate car batteries for each, the company uses the same single car battery that is passed around. You then proceed to take out and use the same single driving seat for each battery car saying that because Bob said each battery car can use the same single car battery that this allows you to also use the same single seat - which is blantantly not the case.

Now lets look at something like Evoker's Empowered Evocation:



Note how the text uses 'damage roll', not 'roll for damage'.
Actually they do. (https://mobile.twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/557823175581769729)

I don't think I understood correctly- is the car the MM in this case? With batteries being rolls and seats being modifiers?

If so then the analogy doesn't hold up since you aren't driving multiple cars with the same battery simultaneously, which is a key word for the ruling. To be relevant you'd have to make a different damage roll for every missile (since you need multiple batteries for multiple cars) which is an entirely different ruling- because if you roll for damage once you aren't making multiple damage rolls, since they would require rolling for damage multiple times.

[Aimeryan]

Actually they do. (https://mobile.twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/557823175581769729)

Ah, then yeah, it is reasons such as this that Officialdomtm got taken away from him.


I don't think I understood correctly- is the car the MM in this case? With batteries being rolls and seats being modifiers?

If so then the analogy doesn't hold up since you aren't driving multiple cars with the same battery simultaneously, which is a key word for the ruling. To be relevant you'd have to make a different damage roll for every missile (since you need multiple batteries for multiple cars) which is an entirely different ruling- because if you roll for damage once you aren't making multiple damage rolls, since they would require rolling for damage multiple times.

The battery car is the damage roll. The car battery is the roll for damage. The driving seat is the add the modifiers.
The simultaneous requirement you are referring to is just a requirement for the rule of sharing the roll the damage component to activate - it is not relevant to the discussion because removing it changes nothing. However, you have brought up the issue that is causing the confusion with this line:


...if you roll for damage once you aren't making multiple damage rolls, since they would require rolling for damage multiple times.

No. Simply, no. I'll post the quotes of relevance here, again:

Damage Roll:

Damage Rolls
You roll the damage die or dice, add any modifiers, and apply the damage to your target.

Here is the quote for the roll the damage component being shared:

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.

Multiple damage rolls occur, however, due to the rule you only roll the damage once for all of them. Rolling the damage is not the damage roll, the damage roll is the damage roll, rolling the damage is just one component of the damage roll. Just like the battery in the car is not the car, the car is the car, the battery is just a component of the car. The issue you are having is that the same words are used in different orders and that is confusing you to think they are the same thing. Again, with that confusion added in; the car battery in the battery car is not the battery car, the battery car is the battery car, the car battery is just a component of the battery car. Confusing, I agree.

[Valmark]

Ah, then yeah, it is reasons such as this that Officialdomtm got taken away from him.



The battery car is the damage roll. The car battery is the roll for damage. The driving seat is the add the modifiers.
The simultaneous requirement you are referring to is just a requirement for the rule of sharing the roll the damage component to activate - it is not relevant to the discussion because removing it changes nothing. However, you have brought up the issue that is causing the confusion with this line:



No. Simply, no. I'll post the quotes of relevance here, again:

Damage Roll:


Here is the quote for the roll the damage component being shared:


Multiple damage rolls occur, however, due to the rule you only roll the damage once for all of them. Rolling the damage is not the damage roll, the damage roll is the damage roll, rolling the damage is just one component of the damage roll. Just like the battery in the car is not the car, the car is the car, the battery is just a component of the car. The issue you are having is that the same words are used in different orders and that is confusing you to think they are the same thing. Again, with that confusion added in; the car battery in the battery car is not the battery car, the battery car is the battery car, the car battery is just a component of the battery car. Confusing, I agree.

Alright, I had misinterpreted what the cars rapresented- damage rolls, not darts.

I think it's still an incorrect analogy though- you're saying there are multiple damage rolls (cars) at the same time with a single roll for damage (battery) but, again, you can't drive multiple cars with a single battery.

Removing the simultaneous requirement does matter- you can't deal damage 'at the same time' otherwise.

It's really not confusing at all. The difference is that you interpret "all of them" as meaning "all of the damage rolls", which isn't necessarily true. Like you said, "damage rolls" are never mentioned.

The only thing is that one does need to target at least another creature with a dart in order to trigger the effect. I think. That's how it looks to me anyway.

[Aimeryan]

Alright, I had misinterpreted what the cars rapresented- damage rolls, not darts.

I think it's still an incorrect analogy though- you're saying there are multiple damage rolls (cars) at the same time with a single roll for damage (battery) but, again, you can't drive multiple cars with a single battery.

Removing the simultaneous requirement does matter- you can't deal damage 'at the same time' otherwise.

The simultaneous requirement completely has no part in any of this. You apply the rule with that requirement, that is all. We are not discussing activating the rule, where this would apply, we are discussing the rule once already applied. You know what, yeah the battery is mystical and can beam the energy to the cars and they all drive at the same time, there, analogy now 100% the same yet nothing changed.


It's really not confusing at all. The difference is that you interpret "all of them" as meaning "all of the damage rolls", which isn't necessarily true. Like you said, "damage rolls" are never mentioned.

The only thing is that one does need to target at least another creature with a dart in order to trigger the effect. I think. That's how it looks to me anyway.

One, it is under the section called Damage Rolls. Two, it actually doesn't matter if it is damage rolls the sentence refers to with 'them' or targets; the results are the same. A target receives damage roll(s) that consist of rolling the damage and then adding modifiers. If you share the roll the damage component amongst damage rolls/targets then that component is shared only - the modifier component is completely separate.

Equation:

y = x + c
where:
y = a damage roll
x = roll the damage for that damage roll (a variable number betwen 1-4)
c = modifiers for that damage roll (usually just +1, but other features can add to this)

Changes or stipulations on 'x' do nothing to 'c'. In this case, the rule is that once 'x' is rolled it remains fixed at that number for all instances of 'y' in that spell. Lets say 'x' rolled as 2:

y = 2 + c

We can see that 'x' has now changed, however, 'c' remains the same - it is a separate component of 'y' and not subject to the rule that specifically says it changes 'x'.

[Valmark]

The simultaneous requirement completely has no part in any of this. You apply the rule with that requirement, that is all. We are not discussing activating the rule, where this would apply, we are discussing the rule once already applied. You know what, yeah the battery is mystical and can beam the energy to the cars and they all drive at the same time, there, analogy now 100% the same yet nothing changed.



One, it is under the section called Damage Rolls. Two, it actually doesn't matter if it is damage rolls the sentence refers to with 'them' or targets; the results are the same. A target receives damage roll(s) that consist of rolling the damage and then adding modifiers. If you share the roll the damage component amongst damage rolls/targets then that component is shared only - the modifier component is completely separate.

Equation:

y = x + c
where:
y = a damage roll
x = roll the damage for that damage roll (a variable number betwen 1-4)
c = modifiers for that damage roll (usually just +1, but other features can add to this)

Changes or stipulations on 'x' do nothing to 'c'. In this case, the rule is that once 'x' is rolled it remains fixed at that number for all instances of 'y' in that spell. Lets say 'x' rolled as 2:

y = 2 + c

We can see that 'x' has now changed, however, 'c' remains the same - it is a separate component of 'y' and not subject to the rule that specifically says it changes 'x'.

But nothing says it's multiple damage rolls.
That's... All there is to it. It's fair to say that the modifier is applied to only one damage roll of many who all share the same roll for damage- but that's just a deduction you make from the text.

It's no better then saying that you roll for damage once and apply the modifier and that's the damage roll that is applied several times (which is why a single damage roll provokes multiple Concentration saves, which was the original question).

[Aimeryan]

But nothing says it's multiple damage rolls.
That's... All there is to it. It's fair to say that the modifier is applied to only one damage roll of many who all share the same roll for damage- but that's just a deduction you make from the text.

It's no better then saying that you roll for damage once and apply the modifier and that's the damage roll that is applied several times (which is why a single damage roll provokes multiple Concentration saves, which was the original question).

What is 'it'?

A damage roll is what you get for each instance of damage. It consists of [roll the damage] + [add any modifiers]. The share rule specifies the [roll the damage] component is shared amongst all damage rolls that the spell causes (with the simultaneous requirement for this rule to be in play) - that is it.

There may very well be some feature or such that says 'to all damage rolls' or 'when rolling the damage', however, I am only aware of 'to one damage roll'. That means one damage roll gets modified.

[noob]

Once again dnd have unfathomable rules that mixes english terms and made up terms that looks just like english then people understands random things and discuss about their random interpretations.

[Valmark]

What is 'it'?

A damage roll is what you get for each instance of damage. It consists of [roll the damage] + [add any modifiers]. The share rule specifies the [roll the damage] component is shared amongst all damage rolls that the spell causes (with the simultaneous requirement for this rule to be in play) - that is it.

There may very well be some feature or such that says 'to all damage rolls' or 'when rolling the damage', however, I am only aware of 'to one damage roll'. That means one damage roll gets modified.

Yes, and again you are just adding that there are multiple damage rolls to the text.

I don't think I'll be repeating that again, being a tangent to the actual topic anyway.

[Bobthewizard]

This magic missile debate comes up a lot on here. There are some that are very passionate that Empowered evocation and Hexblade's curse can apply multiple times to the same target. When I read the Sage Advice and the spell and ability descriptions, I don't think that is true. I think it is multiple concentration checks, but you only add the damage dice once per target since all of the missiles are a single roll, and I think JC's tweets refer to hitting multiple targets not multiple missiles hitting the same target. But it is unclear enough that no one will win that argument on here.

So if you want to play a nuclear wizard, you should talk to your DM. I think most will not allow it, but if you find one that does, congratulations!

[LudicSavant]

When I read the Sage Advice and the spell and ability descriptions, I don't think that is true.
I think JC's tweets refer to hitting multiple targets not multiple missiles hitting the same target. But it is unclear enough that

I really don't see how you can come to that conclusion from the Sage Advice. (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/557823175581769729)


that roll can damage the same target more than once.

I don't even know how that could possibly be worded any more explicitly than it already is.

[Witty Username]

This magic missile debate comes up a lot on here. There are some that are very passionate that Empowered evocation and Hexblade's curse can apply multiple times to the same target. When I read the Sage Advice and the spell and ability descriptions, I don't think that is true. I think it is multiple concentration checks, but you only add the damage dice once per target since all of the missiles are a single roll, and I think JC's tweets refer to hitting multiple targets not multiple missiles hitting the same target. But it is unclear enough that no one will win that argument on here.

So if you want to play a nuclear wizard, you should talk to your DM. I think most will not allow it, but if you find one that does, congratulations!

It depends on how the ability is worded, if it adds to the damage roll, then it can apply to the same target multiple times or to multiple targets. If it adds to the damage dealt to one creature (I think elemental affinity is worded that way now) you are correct.

[Valmark]

It depends on how the ability is worded, if it adds to the damage roll, then it can apply to the same target multiple times or to multiple targets. If it adds to the damage dealt to one creature (I think elemental affinity is worded that way now) you are correct.

The former, it's per damage roll- elemental affinity says that too.

[animewatcha]

Magic missiles stop being effective in breaking concentration when the enemies have +9 or more to the con save.

Depends upon situation resources, party members, etc. There is also that 'dreaded nat 1'.
A wand of magic missile is an uncommon item and those are what a couple of thousand gp at most? I tried to google the price but kept coming up with 'custom lists' that disagreed everywhere as to how much it cost.

[Galithar]

Depends upon situation resources, party members, etc. There is also that 'dreaded nat 1'.
A wand of magic missile is an uncommon item and those are what a couple of thousand gp at most? I tried to google the price but kept coming up with 'custom lists' that disagreed everywhere as to how much it cost.

Nat 1 on a save isn't an auto fail. A +9 still succeeds on DC10

[Glorthindel]

In older editions (AD&D and older), spells had a cast time (instead of rolling initiative, the spell was cast at the initiative count of the spells cast time) and you could interrupt spellcasting by damaging the caster before the spell was launched. Magic Missile had one of the fastest cast times of an offensive spell, which combined with its automatic hit, meant in a fight with spellcasters on both sides, you could use Magic Missile to 'poke' the enemy caster and interrupt his slower spell.

Are the current designers intending this as an extra use of Magic Missile? Probably not, but it fits with its historical use, so fine with me.

[DwarfFighter]

My ruling as a GM is that each missile is an independent source of damage. Each dart deals damage, the description says, so damage is rolled for each dart.

This means multiple concentration checks (congrats, I guess), a single application of Empowered evocation. Basically: It's the same principle as individual Scorching Rays except each missile will hit their target simultaneously.

Now, is MM OP for breaking concentration? Dunno, it hasn't been an issue with us so far. I guess if the PCs started using it to counter concentration to great effect, then that's just good tactics that the enemies too can consider.

-DF

[jojosskul]

Somewhat related Magic Missile "benefit", evil wizards/BBEGs or casters engaged in PVP can use it to automatically cause a downed PC to fail three death saves.

[Gignere]

Somewhat related Magic Missile "benefit", evil wizards/BBEGs or casters engaged in PVP can use it to automatically cause a downed PC to fail three death saves.

This is so evil but I like it.

[Trafalgar]

It’s off because it is only for low levels at high levels casters can get resilient con and may have a Paladin in the party and can easily have a +9/+10 to concentration saves so at that point it doesn’t matter if you need to make 3 - 10 dc 10 checks because you pass automatically. If MM is one check than it’s damage stack and can push a DC higher than 10 so it makes it not automatic pass.

I was asking whether my Math was off. I was giving a basic example to illustrate the difference in the two options, not give the percent cahnce of maintaining concentration for every single possible build.

[Gignere]

I was asking whether my Math was off. I was giving a basic example to illustrate the difference in the two options, not give the percent cahnce of maintaining concentration for every single possible build.

I’m saying it’s off because you didn’t consider the holistic impact of making the change for all levels of play and what appears OP at low levels wouldn’t be OP and in fact make MM more useful at high levels.

[PattThe]

I’m saying it’s off because you didn’t consider the holistic impact of making the change for all levels of play and what appears OP at low levels wouldn’t be OP and in fact make MM more useful at high levels.

I've always wanted to make an enemy who has Tier IV level spellcaster levels and spends each turn casting upcast magic missiles with increasingly potent slots. Has anyone made a Magic Missile build for Tasha's? I wonder which pure class does it better by level 17.

[Amnestic]

I've always wanted to make an enemy who has Tier IV level spellcaster levels and spends each turn casting upcast magic missiles with increasingly potent slots. Has anyone made a Magic Missile build for Tasha's? I wonder which pure class does it better by level 17.

This may be the sort of thing you're after. (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=23998967&postcount=170)

[BarneyBent]

JC's rulings are not official. Furthermore, if I recall correctly (may need to fetch the relevant tweets), JC's comments do not actually equate rolling the damage once as applying modifiers to all Damage Rolls, which are different things. Instead, he simply reiterates that you roll for the damage once, which is nothing at all to do with modifiers.

A lot of confusion arises here from people thinking Damage Rolls are the same exact thing as rolling for damage, and that therefore anything that applies to a single Damage Roll applies equalling to a single rolling for damage, which can then be spread by the 'once for all' rule.

For this analogy, instead of 'car' I will use the phrase 'battery car' because it is a car that uses a battery. Also, instead of 'battery' I will use the phrase 'car battery' because it is a battery for a car. I am doing this because there is confusion between 'damage roll' and 'rolling for damage', despite being quite different orders of the same words and having different meanings.

Bob's company owns a fleet of electric battery cars all of the same make - they all use the same generic components specifications, including car batteries and driving seats. Each battery car is given to a different driver, of which they make it their own, but the company only actually uses one driver at any time operating in rotating shifts. You are a new driver, however, unfortunately they don't have any spare battery cars at the moment! Bob informs you that for now you may take any battery car out to drive, however, instead of paying for separate car batteries for each battery car, the company uses the same single car battery that is passed around. One of the battery cars has a custom upgraded driving seat, which is usual. You then proceed to take out and use this same single custom driving seat for each battery car saying that because Bob said each battery car can use the same single car battery that this allows you to also use the same single driving seat - which is blantantly not the case!

Now lets look at something like Evoker's Empowered Evocation:



Note how the text uses 'damage roll', not 'roll for damage'.

Your distinction between "roll for damage" and "damage roll" does not imply what you think it does.

Damage rolls occur when you roll for damage, and then add the modifiers. If you only roll for damage once, then there is only one damage roll.

You've equated rolling for damage with a car battery. Fine, let's go with that analogy. Rolling for damage equates to one instance of a car battery. Not one type of car battery, not one model, but one specific, individual car battery. The a single battery car has that individual car battery.

When the rules say use one car battery ("roll for damage once") for all targets, it means there's one car, with one battery, that drives around and hits all the targets. And if you have an ability that gives the car a boost, such as some fancy tyres; that boost will be used on all the targets because it's the same car.

What represents the model of the battery? The dice you roll. Scorching ray, for example, summons three of the same cars with the same batteries, but some batteries might have more charge than others despite being the same model, and you might have some better tyres you can chuck on one.

But when it's one battery, one car, you can put all of your fancy stuff on the one car and it can use it to mow down all of your targets.

Now, why do I believe that my interpretation that rolling for damage once means one damage roll, despite them being (as you correctly note) two slightly different things?

Because a) it is simpler, and as a general rule DnD errs on the side of simple, and b) the person who literally wrote the rules has said it's the correct interpretation.

As a DM you are absolutely within your rights to rule differently. And yes, JC is not official. If what he said actively contradicts the text then fine then you can even use that to dismiss him without invoking "I'm the DM".

But it doesn't contradict the text. You're claiming the text doesn't support the ruling based on a (frankly tortured) interpretation that just because rolling for damage is slightly different from a damage roll, you actually have multiple damage rolls for every target even if they share one roll for damage.

Finally, the way other spells work belies your interpretation. If there are multiple damage rolls despite being a single, shared roll for damage, then by that logic, Empowered Evocation on a Fireball affects a single target. After all, each target has a different, identical damage roll, yes? And only one is affected by EE?

That's clearly not the case, which means a single roll for damage equates to a single damage roll.

[Trafalgar]

I’m saying it’s off because you didn’t consider the holistic impact of making the change for all levels of play and what appears OP at low levels wouldn’t be OP and in fact make MM more useful at high levels.

I was asking whether I used the correct equations to get the percent probability for multiple dice rolls and I didn't make an error with the actual calculations.

You are correct that I didn't run the equations for every possible build and situation like whether the Wizard has a Paladin in the party. You are more than welcome to run the calculations yourself.

[Ettina]

A lot of people in this thread seem to be assuming that you're trying to break a PC's concentration with magic missile. If you look at NPCs with devastating concentration abilities, very few of them have good concentration checks. Archmage (CR12) has only a +1, mind flayer (CR7) has a +1, aboleth (CR10) has a +2, etc. You can build a PC to be very unlikely to lose concentration, but most caster NPCs aren't built that way. At CR equivalent to level, PC casters are much less likely to lose concentration than NPC casters.

[DwarfFighter]

Have a problem with NPCs not concentrating? Use more NPCs.

[Cikomyr2]

I say if you follow Jeremy Crawford's inane ruling on magic missile being a single roll, then magic missile would cause a single concentration check, at best.

If magic missile is a multiple damage source then I say multiple concentration checks, but the Evoker can only add his int once.

[Valmark]

I say if you follow Jeremy Crawford's inane ruling on magic missile being a single roll, then magic missile would cause a single concentration check, at best.

If magic missile is a multiple damage source then I say multiple concentration checks, but the Evoker can only add his int once.

That specific ruling is a single damage roll getting applied multiple times- thus Evokers would get to apply Int multiple times and also provoke Concentration saves multiple times.

[PattThe]

I say if you follow Jeremy Crawford's inane ruling on magic missile being a single roll, then magic missile would cause a single concentration check, at best.

If magic missile is a multiple damage source then I say multiple concentration checks, but the Evoker can only add his int once.

Yeah I'm beginning to see his case there. Buuuuut someone should probably see what rationale Zee Banshew used on his popular video on Magic Missile a couple weeks ago.

[Cikomyr2]

That specific ruling is a single damage roll getting applied multiple times- thus Evokers would get to apply Int multiple times and also provoke Concentration saves multiple times.

Multiple Time simultaneously. Therefore, a single concentration save

[SirDidymus]

Somewhat related Magic Missile "benefit", evil wizards/BBEGs or casters engaged in PVP can use it to automatically cause a downed PC to fail three death saves.

That's the reason I'd head for the 'one damage roll' ruling so that you couldn't auto-kill a downed PC.

[Cikomyr2]

That's the reason I'd head for the 'one damage roll' ruling so that you couldn't auto-kill a downed PC.

Seriously. Wizards can't have their cake and eat it to. If you want to abuse the goddamn rule and say "it's a single roll", then it's a single source of damage. Period.

[Valmark]

Seriously. Wizards can't have their cake and eat it to. If you want to abuse the goddamn rule and say "it's a single roll", then it's a single source of damage. Period.

I mean, like LS said:


If the Concentration checks weren't separate, you'd go from "multiple DC10 checks" to "one DC50 check" if you were getting hit by a Hexvoker. I'll take the DC10s, thanks. :smalltongue:

Meaning that you're probably boosting the caster by making it a single, bigger one.

Aside from that, there aren't just those two rulings- there is also, for example, 3 darts that all deal the same 3 damage rolled once. That would be one damage roll for multiple sources (i.e. the three darts) of damage.

Fine if you don't like it but it's far from being just the two.

[Cikomyr2]

I mean, like LS said:



Meaning that you're probably boosting the caster by making it a single, bigger one.

Aside from that, there aren't just those two rulings- there is also, for example, 3 darts that all deal the same 3 damage rolled once. That would be one damage roll for multiple sources (i.e. the three darts) of damage.

Fine if you don't like it but it's far from being just the two.

DC 50 means 50 damage.

All right, interesting. Assuming an intelligence of 20, that's 1d4+6 damage/missile. On average 2.5+6 = 8.5 damage/missile, so it would take about 5-6 missiles to do that amount; a level 3-4 spell slots.

I blame Crawford entirely here. His ruling is inane.

[Amnestic]

DC 50 means 50 damage.

Concentration check is half damage, or 10, whichever's higher, so DC50 is 100 damage.

[Gignere]

Concentration check is half damage, or 10, whichever's higher, so DC50 is 100 damage.

DC 25 is already a tough save to make though.

[LudicSavant]

DC 50 means 50 damage. DC 50 means 100 damage.

[Cikomyr2]

Concentration check is half damage, or 10, whichever's higher, so DC50 is 100 damage.

...I knew that :smalleek:

[Kuu Lightwing]

Never liked JC's ruling on magic missile. It just feels like he's trying to fix some perceived problems with the spell by a weird ruling. I think the main problem of applying "multiple target simultaneously" rule is that Magic Missile doesn't act as other spells that fall under said rule (i.e. Fireball and other "all targets in x area take y damage"), and for that matter, the darts may not be hitting different targets to begin with. So, imagine I'm casting Magic Missile targeting all darts at Wizzy the Wizard who's concentrating on Polymorph.

The PHB rule states "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."

Does the spell deal damage to more than one target at the same time? No, it doesn't. It does damage to one target - Wizzy. If I were to also target Fighty the Fighter with the same spell, you could argue then yes we have to roll damage once, but I do not, so I see no reason why should I only roll damage once. In fact, rule doesn't say anything about making same roll for all parts of the spell (i.e. darts, in this case), it only says about using the same roll for all the targets, so I find the foundation of that ruling to be pretty shaky.

[LudicSavant]

In fact, rule doesn't say anything about making same roll for all parts of the spell (i.e. darts, in this case), it only says about using the same roll for all the targets, so I find the foundation of that ruling to be pretty shaky.

The rules don't say anything about there being multiple damage rolls for multiple projectiles, either, yet oddly you do not seem to find that interpretation 'weird' or 'shaky.' Why is that?

[Cikomyr2]

The rules don't say anything about there being multiple damage rolls for multiple projectiles, either, yet oddly you do not seem to find that interpretation 'weird' or 'shaky.' Why is that?

the rule say the same effect applies to multiple enemies instantaneously use the same roll. That means spirit guardian have rerolled damage for every enemy that takes their turn at different intervals, but a single roll for a group of guards acting on the same initiative.

that's it. However, Scorching ray have different rolls because each rays are unique, even if they are instantaneous.

JC decided that Magic Missile is more akin to Spirit Guardian or Fireball than Scorching ray, because it's automated damage? So all missiles use the same roll. Which I strongly disagree with.

[Valmark]

the rule say the same effect applies to multiple enemies instantaneously use the same roll. That means spirit guardian have rerolled damage for every enemy that takes their turn at different intervals, but a single roll for a group of guards acting on the same initiative.

that's it. However, Scorching ray have different rolls because each rays are unique, even if they are instantaneous.

JC decided that Magic Missile is more akin to Spirit Guardian or Fireball than Scorching ray, because it's automated damage? So all missiles use the same roll. Which I strongly disagree with.

Isn't it because it's simultaneous?

[GiantOctopodes]

DC 50 means 50 damage.

All right, interesting. Assuming an intelligence of 20, that's 1d4+6 damage/missile. On average 2.5+6 = 8.5 damage/missile, so it would take about 5-6 missiles to do that amount; a level 3-4 spell slots.

I blame Crawford entirely here. His ruling is inane.

Yeah I tend to ignore most of what Crawford says, with no offense meant whatsoever I find his rulings often introduce more problems than they solve. Not to mention as others have indicated sage advice often contradicts itself in different rulings. For me, effects which grant spellcasting modifier bonus to damage do so once once per target per round for each spell, regardless of how many attacks or rolls or whatever are occurring. It's clean, it's easy, and it's not prone to balance issues.

That being said, concentration checks are 1/2 damage dealt. Though I presume they were being facetious with the con check 50 bit, it would need to do 100 damage to cause that, or at 8.5 damage per missile you'd need 12 missiles.

Edit: To the point at hand, I also treat each spell as a 'source' of damage, which means 1 concentration check for total damage dealt, though after seeing others feedback I'm somewhat debating changing it as I kinda like magic missile as a good multi-concentration check forcer, I don't think it's OP or particularly matters either way but it warrants playtesting.

[Valmark]

That being said, concentration checks are 1/2 damage dealt. Though I presume they were being facetious with the con check 50 bit, it would need to do 100 damage to cause that, or at 8.5 damage per missile you'd need 12 missiles.


That is doable. (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=23998967&postcount=170)

[OvisCaedo]

The rules don't say anything about there being multiple damage rolls for multiple projectiles, either, yet oddly you do not seem to find that interpretation 'weird' or 'shaky.' Why is that?

An argument can be shaky without the conclusion being so. I don't think the text explicitly says one way or the other, but the rules for hitting multiple targets simultaneously being presented as the reason for a single-target use case is certainly something I can see as questionable. Though I can also see why it might be brought up, since magic missile has weirdly flexible targeting and it could be very weird to use different rolling rules for three missiles based on how many things are being targeted. A single damage roll is what would make the rolling process uniform for all cases, after all.

I also think it's probably not "supposed" to work like that given Empowered Evocation being very deliberately errata nerfed to avoid applying multiple times with one spell cast, but rules are rules I guess. (and also I disliked that errata to begin with and think the spell that can't miss somehow still doing it is hilarious)

[Cikomyr2]

Isn't it because it's simultaneous?

flash news: Scorching ray is also simultaneous. You have to pick your targets before you roll your attack and damage.

[LudicSavant]

because it's automated damage?

Isn't it because it's simultaneous?

It's because Scorching Ray makes attacks, and therefore references the rules for making attacks.

[Valmark]

flash news: Scorching ray is also simultaneous. You have to pick your targets before you roll your attack and damage.

This is entirely your opinion- Magic Missile says it's simultaneous, Scorching Ray doesn't.

[Gignere]

This is entirely your opinion- Magic Missile says it's simultaneous, Scorching Ray doesn't.

Yeah scorching ray you can shoot, move, shoot, bonus action do something else, move shoot again. You definitely cannot do that with MM.