Magic Missile: Meme spell or serious business?

[Schwann145]

Back in ye olde days of 2nd Edition AD&D and prior, Magic Missile was actually quite a useful spell, even dealing it's low damage, because HP was lower as a general rule. This made an auto-hitting 1d4+1 per missile quite a bit more valuable.

3rd Edition inflated HP quite a bit across the board as everyone could more reliably get a Con bonus and the class HD never capped as it did before. The Magic Missile damage progression, however, remained unchanged from prior editions, so it's overall effect became less noticeable. It did, however, continue to grow in power with caster level so it's value as a 1st level spell, while fairly low in early levels, was still present as the character grew.

With 5th Edition, we have Magic Missile continue to be a first level spell even though it would seem to fit better as a Cantrip. It's low-level power has been significantly increased from it's 3rd Edition variation, at least before 5th level, where it evens out and then loses power with every level after. It also seems to scale very poorly with upcasting, adding only a single missile per upcast level. Furthermore, HP has continued to grow with many classes increasing their class HD value from 3rd edition levels, making it's damage continue to feel unimpressive.

I know I've never bothered to take Magic Missile as a spell in 5e on any caster I've played with access to it. It may see value in the levels 1-3 range, but other spells are just flat out better and Cantrips eventually overtake it's damage anyway. The auto-hit nature of the spell is less valuable than ever with every class having the same attack progression, and while Force damage is valuable, I'm not convinced that's a good enough reason to take it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Auto hit. That's a big help.

Depending on how you play it, either 1 or 3+ concentration checks.

Depending on how you play it, it scales really well with "add X damage to one roll" features.

Force damage.

[Sigreid]

I've used it fairly often. Especially upcast when we need to put the monster down. It's not the most damage a wizard can do, but it's nearly guaranteed reasonable damage when you need it.

[J-H]

I have it on my wizard, and have used it several times. Auto-hit is a big deal.
My players have used it a few times as well.

[Segev]

Auto-hit, nearly-unresistable damage is pretty valuable. It might trickle off in effectiveness at higher level, whereas it became more potent with level in the first three editions, but it's useful for what it does.

If Sorcerer did a better job of living up to the concept of a master of a few particular spells with unique tricks that expand on them, I'd say it could be very interesting on a Sorcerer. Unfortunately, metamagic is very generic and doesn't do much for making spells unusual and special.

[Dualswinger]

Do you think 5e will ever have another "Magic Missile Master" subclass/prestige class like 3.5 did?

[Unoriginal]

Back in ye olde days of 2nd Edition AD&D and prior, Magic Missile was actually quite a useful spell, even dealing it's low damage, because HP was lower as a general rule. This made an auto-hitting 1d4+1 per missile quite a bit more valuable.

3rd Edition inflated HP quite a bit across the board as everyone could more reliably get a Con bonus and the class HD never capped as it did before. The Magic Missile damage progression, however, remained unchanged from prior editions, so it's overall effect became less noticeable. It did, however, continue to grow in power with caster level so it's value as a 1st level spell, while fairly low in early levels, was still present as the character grew.

With 5th Edition, we have Magic Missile continue to be a first level spell even though it would seem to fit better as a Cantrip. It's low-level power has been significantly increased from it's 3rd Edition variation, at least before 5th level, where it evens out and then loses power with every level after. It also seems to scale very poorly with upcasting, adding only a single missile per upcast level. Furthermore, HP has continued to grow with many classes increasing their class HD value from 3rd edition levels, making it's damage continue to feel unimpressive.

I know I've never bothered to take Magic Missile as a spell in 5e on any caster I've played with access to it. It may see value in the levels 1-3 range, but other spells are just flat out better and Cantrips eventually overtake it's damage anyway. The auto-hit nature of the spell is less valuable than ever with every class having the same attack progression, and while Force damage is valuable, I'm not convinced that's a good enough reason to take it.

Magic Missile never misses, and you can decide how to spread the damage. That alone keeps it relevant for any magic user (and also is why it's not a cantrip). And while it doesn't have extraordinary damage or upcasting potential, it is decent at both.


A spell's value is dependent as much on its effects than it is on its chances to be useful. A 3rd level spell whose effect is "instant-kill a single Demon if they fail a STR save, ignoring Magic Resistance, and deals 4d10 radiant damage to them on a successful save" would be ridiculously powerful... except if you're not fighting Demons, in which case the spell is useless.

So, casters have to choose their spells based on how useful they're likely to be. Magic Missile? You can choose to deal decent damage to a single opponent, or a bunch of damage to a bunch of mooks. You don't have to worry about AC or high saving throw mods or most abilities that help resist being affected by spells. It's a type of damage that has extremely rare Resistance/Immunity. And it just takes one of your 1rst level spell known/memorized to have that.

There are very few situations where Magic Missile will not be useful. It won't be your best spell, but it's a great spell to have in case the situation makes what you'd otherwise think is your best spell less than ideal (ex: you took a DEX-targeting AoE and you're now facing a single high-DEX opponent with Magic Resistance, or you took a cold-damage single-target attack spell and you're facing a whole bunch of Resistant-to-cold mooks with chainmail+shield AC).

Reliability is a strength in itself.

[JNAProductions]

It's a good spell. Not busted or anything, but useful.

There are a few combos that can break it (Nuclear Wizard with +Int and +Prof to every missile) but in general, it's a useful spell, but not spectacular.

And that's fine.

[Tanarii]

Magic missile is like Cure Wounds. The damage / healing is automatic / 100% chance. So even though it seems quite low in comparison to the numbers on the other side, it's actual value is (very roughly) double when you make a comparison.

So think of it as 2d4+2 per spell slot level when comparing to other single target damage spells, and you'll be able to value it more accurately.

Even then, the auto hit side has additional value on top of that, in that you'll never waste the slot and (if you judge the timing right) won't potentially waste a round trying to finish something off.

[heavyfuel]

I just don't bother with MM.

Maybe in a Nuclear Wizard build (which I haven't had the chance to try) I'd go for it, but otherwise the damage just isn't worth it.

For one, you're never going to cast this spell beyong like level 5. After level 5, you probably won't have as many preparation slots as you want, and damage is better covered by other spells. And since MM - just like most damage spells - scale really poorly with upcasting, at this point you're better off using a cantrip and saving your 1st level slots for Mage Armor, Shield, and Absorb Element.

For two, I think people over-value the force damage and the auto hitting aspect of it. Before level 5, you're very unlikely to run into an enemy with really high saves, really high AC, and immunity to TWO damage types (assuming you have more than one damaging cantrip). So these aspects of MM that are often played up don't actually matter all that much.

There are very very few situations where I'd take MM over Sleep. Only in an Undead heavy campaign, and even then I might go for Burning Hands, which also deals guaranteed damage because no CR 1 enemy will have Evasion.

Being able to guarantee that a 2hp enemy will die and also dealing some damage to another enemy is good, but how often are you facing enemies that you know are at 1 or 2 HP? If the enemy has 3 HP, then a single Missile might not kill them. You'll have to comit 2 missiles to them, so you're only dealing minor damage elsewhere. And you're spending what is - to a low level caster - a high level spell slot.

More than once have I seen a DM describing an enemy as "almost dead" and then a Wiz/Sorc throws a single MM at them and they roll a 2 and the DM says the enemy is still standing.

Breaking concentration with it can work, but if you're facing another spellcaster, there's a decent chance they'll have either Shield or Counterspell ready. So it's far from a garantee either. Plus, if you're counting on the enemy having low Con saves, there are better spells you can be casting. Spells with DC higher than 10 (although, true, these are usually just one save as opposed to three). All of this is assuming your DM is nice and rules that MM forces multiple saves.

[Nifft]

5e does have a spell which feels like 1e Magic Missile, and that 5e spell is Eldritch Blast.

[heavyfuel]

Do you think 5e will ever have another "Magic Missile Master" subclass/prestige class like 3.5 did?

It could be pretty cool as a Wizard subclass.

At 2nd level you gain +Int to MM damage

At 6th you gain the ability to ignore Shields and a bonus against Counterspell (maybe the MM always counts as your highest level spell for counterspelling purposes)

Since the first bonus is pretty situational, also at 6th maybe gain the ability to ignore components a few times per day when casting MM.

Then at 10th you can add Energy Damage so you can exploit Vulnerabilities (maybe you can change the +Int from level 2 for an energy type, so you deal 1d4+1 Force +Int Fire)

Finally, at 14th you gain the effects of a Ring of Spellturning as a permanent effect.

I could see this working.

[LudicSavant]

I know I've never bothered to take Magic Missile as a spell in 5e on any caster I've played with access to it. It may see value in the levels 1-3 range, but other spells are just flat out better and Cantrips eventually overtake it's damage anyway. The auto-hit nature of the spell is less valuable than ever with every class having the same attack progression, and while Force damage is valuable, I'm not convinced that's a good enough reason to take it.

People tend to underestimate just how big an impact accuracy has.

Magic Missile is quite competitive at low levels -- for instance, in a second level slot, it outdamages Scorching Ray against opponents of AC 14+, has a better damage type, etc.

"Cantrips eventually overtake it" is true of many low level damage spells. You're not really supposed to be using low level single target damage spells at high levels, unless you have some specific combo to enhance them (such as EE/HBC Magic Missiles, or Hex Scorching Rays). And if you do have such combos... well, they actually scale very well.

In short:

MM is solid in a level 1-2 spell slot without any particular combos.
It can scale well to much, much higher spell slots with certain combos.


Do you think 5e will ever have another "Magic Missile Master" subclass/prestige class like 3.5 did?

If you want to be a Magic Missile Master, be a Hexvoker.

[cookieface]

I'd argue its most valuable use is as a concentration-breaker, and that means it has value even at higher levels of play.

The risk is if that enemy spellcaster has Shield available and a reaction still to be used, but if you know either of those are not true, then hit them with 3-5 Magic Missiles and force them to drop Hold Person or whatever.

Additionally, it's a master-minion-killer. Not sure how many of you play with minionized monsters, but when a PC walks into a dungeon and there's nine goblins and two trolls, it can make real quick work of the goblins to help with action economy.

[Cybren]

It could be pretty cool as a Wizard subclass.

At 2nd level you gain +Int to MM damage

At 6th you gain the ability to ignore Shields and a bonus against Counterspell (maybe the MM always counts as your highest level spell for counterspelling purposes)

Since the first bonus is pretty situational, also at 6th maybe gain the ability to ignore components a few times per day when casting MM.

Then at 10th you can add Energy Damage so you can exploit Vulnerabilities (maybe you can change the +Int from level 2 for an energy type, so you deal 1d4+1 Force +Int Fire)

Finally, at 14th you gain the effects of a Ring of Spellturning as a permanent effect.

I could see this working.
There's already a wizard subclass that specializes in magic missile: the evoker. Given the convoluted way that we are apparently expected to read the damage rules, when you cast magic missile you roll a single d4 to determine the damage each missile does, which means the int bonus to evocation damage applies to every missile.
Compare a 6th level magic missile from an evoker: 68 damage on average with 20 int, which you can divide up 8 ways, always hits
Disintegrate: 75 average damage to one target, if it fails a dex save.

[heavyfuel]

There's already a wizard subclass that specializes in magic missile: the evoker.

That's not what I (and probably not what Dualswinger either) was talking about.

Back in 3.5, there was a class that specialized in only casting Magic Missile. Not every evocation spell. Hell, for the first 9 levels the Evoker gives nothing that improves MM. That's not a Magic Missile specialist subclass by any measure.

[Asisreo1]

People tend to underestimate just how big an impact accuracy has.

Magic Missile is quite competitive at low levels -- for instance, in a second level slot, it outdamages Scorching Ray against opponents of AC 14+, has a better damage type, etc.

"Cantrips eventually overtake it" is true of many low level damage spells. You're not really supposed to be using low level single target damage spells at high levels, unless you have some specific combo to enhance them (such as EE/HBC Magic Missiles, or Hex Scorching Rays). And if you do have such combos... well, they actually scale very well.

In short:

MM is solid in a level 1-2 spell slot without any particular combos.
It can scale well to much, much higher spell slots with certain combos.



If you want to be a Magic Missile Master, be a Hexvoker.
I believe, accounting for to-hits at levels 3, you'd need an AC 11+ for Magic Missile to theoretically outdamage.

[Willie the Duck]

I know I've never bothered to take Magic Missile as a spell in 5e on any caster I've played with access to it. It may see value in the levels 1-3 range, but other spells are just flat out better and Cantrips eventually overtake it's damage anyway. The auto-hit nature of the spell is less valuable than ever with every class having the same attack progression, and while Force damage is valuable, I'm not convinced that's a good enough reason to take it.

Automatic hitting is still a (near*) certainty, and that opens up options. I, as the warrior, can charge towards opponent X, knowing that opponent Y is not a problem, because the wizard 'totally has this.'
*corner cases like Shield spell, target actually being a clever illusion or actual target, etc.

That said, the spell is pretty niche. And that is frustrating because we all have that friend who can't stop using it whenever possible, just like they did with fireball in 3e (despite it being niche there), and so forth.


There are a few combos that can break it (Nuclear Wizard with +Int and +Prof to every missile) but in general, it's a useful spell, but not spectacular.
The problem I have found with Nuclear Wizard is that I've never found a DM outside of forums like these who, when presented with the point about technically all MM missiles doing the dame die damage, don't roll their eyes so far into the back of their heads that one fears actual damage might be happening. Self-included.

[cookieface]

The problem I have found with Nuclear Wizard is that I've never found a DM outside of forums like these who, when presented with the point about technically all MM missiles doing the dame die damage, don't roll their eyes so far into the back of their heads that one fears actual damage might be happening. Self-included.

I've personally never understood the logic behind the "one dice roll" ruling for MM. And I never see the same logic applied to Eldritch Blast or Scorching Ray.

The rule regarding "same damage to all affected creatures" makes sense for AoE stuff, but not for multi-target effects like Magic Missile, in my opinion.

Furthermore, Empowered Evocation is a poorly worded feature. By RAW, there only is one damage roll for a spell's effect (unless it has a duration and causes damage multiple times), so saying "one damage roll of any wizard evocation spell you cast" is superfluous and can be stated as "at time of casting" or "the first damage roll" or just tacking on "with an instantaneous duration" to the end of it!

[Battlebooze]

Yea, it's never a huge amount of damage but if you rule each missile as a separate attack, MM becomes a very potent concentration breaker. It's also nice for delivering damage when you absolutely don't want to worry about a save or a miss.

[DwarfFighter]

If the GM is using the Minion house rule, adapted from 4e, Magic Missiles would be great :)

But at some point you're not fighting Goblins anymore, and Magic Missile becomes less viable. You aren't going to meaningfully affect an Adult Red Dragon with 3d4+3 damage, let's agree on that (but see below).

I would definitely keep it on hand just for the auto-hit option. And what else are you going to spend your 1st level slots on that can match it? It's more a question of if you would spend the action to cast it, not the slot.

However, if I knew the remaining hit points of my opponents, then I would definitely want Magic Missile as a finisher! Anyone with 10 or less HP remaining is a high value target!

[Aaron Underhand]

No one seems to have mentioned the most important use... rousing two party members caught in a hypnotic pattern at the same time as forcing a concentration check...

[Schwann145]

While I do agree that the ruling of "roll once and that result applies to every missile" is a bit... silly, the spell does explicitly say, "the darts all strike simultaneously." So it seems a particularly bad ruling for a DM to allow multiple concentration saves on a single casting against a single target, since all the damage happens at once. (Obviously multiple targets should cause multiple Concentration checks, assuming the targets are concentrating!)

If a DM does go with that ruling, there's no question that Magic Missile has a (permanent) spot in any smart Mage's memory. :smalltongue:

[Zhorn]

Low level it is strong enough to be a 'must have' for the reliable damage.
At higher levels it is more useful for it's mechanical quirks as a combat utility spell, and has enough counters so that allowing nuclear wizards to not be entirely game breaking (like so many "over powered" builds, they are not a problem if you vary your encounters and have longer adventuring days with more than one monster between rests).

Every wizard, arcane trickster, and eldritch knight I've made has had this spell sooner or later, and while its use has dropped in frequency at higher levels, I've always found it being valuable to have at the ready at each tier of play.

[Valmark]

Keep in mind that multiple Concentration saves are actually easier to pass then a single big one once you start upcasting MM. A 5th level one provokes, on average, a DC 15 Concentration save if you have absolutely no bonus to it. An evoker with the 10th level feature is going to provoke a DC 21 Concentration save with a 3rd level MM. You could stack even more stuff on it.

While multiple Concentration saves can look worst, ammassing damage could make the save impossible to pass.

Since it's the same damage applied repeatedly it should logically provoke multiple saves anyway, but regardless of that a single bigger save is going to be a worst deal.

[Ghost Nappa]

...the spell does explicitly say, "the darts all strike simultaneously." So it seems a particularly bad ruling for a DM to allow multiple concentration saves on a single casting against a single target, since all the damage happens at once.

If a Monk Flurry of Blows against a single creature, hooking a punch to both sides of an opponent's face to sandwich it, connecting with both hits at the same time, is that one attack or two?

If it's one, why does the Monk make two attack rolls?

If it's two, why are we making this distinction for Magic Missile but not multi-hitting Attack features?

I understand that not wanting to let a level 1 spell cheese enemy concentration, but I think it makes the rules less consistent. Each individual strike/hit forces a concentration check is easy to remember as a general rule. Each dart makes a hit. You're supposed to roll damage for each dart (in the most theoretical sense) but that's a laborious and tedious effort for some people, and for the sake of speeding along a combat may very well just roll once and multiply. In the case of something like Baldur's Gate 3 where the computer is auto-rolling damage, you can get the full randomness without having to slowdown the encounter. Instead you get to suffer with Lag!

[Schwann145]

If a Monk Flurry of Blows against a single creature, hooking a punch to both sides of an opponent's face to sandwich it, connecting with both hits at the same time, is that one attack or two?

If it's one, why does the Monk make two attack rolls?

If it's two, why are we making this distinction for Magic Missile but not multi-hitting Attack features?

I believe you answered your own question: Because the Monk is making separate attack rolls. Would you allow the above attack to deal damage twice if only rolled as a single unarmed strike?

[Zhorn]

Keep in mind that multiple Concentration saves are actually easier to pass then a single big one once you start upcasting MM.
...
Since it's the same damage applied repeatedly it should logically provoke multiple saves anyway, but regardless of that a single bigger save is going to be a worst deal.
While I agree a BIG save is scarier for the potential at being unbeatable, I'd still not want to undersell the effectiveness of multiple low saves.
Unless the enemy caster's CON mod is +9 or greater, a DC 10 will still have at minimum a 5 % chance against a +8 at failing on a d20.
3 missiles with only one of them needing to cause a failure has a binomial cumulative probability of P(X≥1) = 14.26 %
We go up to a 5th level spell slot for 7 darts and the chance of failure has a binomial cumulative probability of P(X≥1) = 30.16 %

Assuming the same +8 for comparison using that DC 15 as your 5th level spell example
15-8=7, so failure on a 6 or less.
6/20=0.3, 30% chance at failure
Pretty close to the same chance.

Now if we use a more realistic CON modifier for a caster, keeping all other aspects equal.
Access to 5th level spells, unless dealing with a sorcerer no proficiency for CON saves, targeting a non-casting attribute, only two ASIs by this point (most likely spent on their primary casting attribute and not on CON): a +2 or +3 would be a generous assumption.
We'll use the +3.
DC 10 vs +3 = failure on a 6 or less = 30%
DC 15 vs +3 = failure on a 11 or less = 55%

Take into account multiple missiles
3 missiles with a 1st level slot gives a binomial cumulative probability of P(X≥1) = 65.7 %
7 missiles with a 5th level slot gives a binomial cumulative probability of P(X≥1) = 91.76 %
BOTH giving better odds at breaking concentration.
If the goal is damage and your not going nuclear with magic missile, yeah the 5th level damaging spell is going to be better on that front. But if the goal is a concentration breaker a cheap 1st level magic missile is mathematically you friend.

[Quietus]

Do you think 5e will ever have another "Magic Missile Master" subclass/prestige class like 3.5 did?

We do, it's called Warlocks with Eldritch Blast. Or, as otherwise noted, hexvokers to 1/SR make Magic Missile absurd, and by tier 3 make it always absurd with a bonus of oh no.

[LudicSavant]

has enough counters so that allowing nuclear wizards to not be entirely game breaking (like so many "over powered" builds, they are not a problem if you vary your encounters and have longer adventuring days with more than one monster between rests).

More or less. It's very strong (especially because Magic Missile is but one of many strong tricks in its toolbelt) but it's not over the limit of what I'm willing to play in a real game, at least at an optimizer table (what's over that limit for me? Things like body swapping exploits, glyph stack demiplanes, extreme minionmancy, infinite loops, etc). It's high single(ish) target burst damage, not breaking the moon. Contrast it to things like EA/HBC/Hex/Spirit Scorching Rays.

Coincidentally, I just hit level 20 with my latest Hexvoker last Saturday. This one (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?618967-Art-of-my-Saturday-Campaign-s-Party). Been playing her since level 3 in a campaign that's been going for over a year. But that also is a game where we can expect to fight 6+ Deadly encounters a day, and everyone's a veteran player who's comfortable with optimization. Oh, and no Wands of Magic Missile. :smalltongue:

[Eldariel]

It's also one of the very few low level Wizard spells that are good against Incorporeals. Specters for instance can be a royal PiTA especially before anyone has magic weapons: resistant or immune to almost all damage types, most status types, moves through objects (and indeed flies), has a bunch of HP and some AC, hits reasonably hard and has really nasty crits. Force-damage is one of the few good ways to fight these on low levels (others being Shillelagh, Magic Stone, Forge Clerics and on level 3, anyone capable of casting Shadow Blade). Though it does take two Magic Missiles to drop one unless you have Hexcurse (in which case a level 2 Magic Missile will generally one-shot one of these).

[greenstone]

Auto hit.
Further to that, it automatically hits at a range where javelin and bow users are probably rolling at disadvantage, and the barbarian with their hand axe is useless.

[Aimeryan]

I've personally never understood the logic behind the "one dice roll" ruling for MM. And I never see the same logic applied to Eldritch Blast or Scorching Ray.

The rule regarding "same damage to all affected creatures" makes sense for AoE stuff, but not for multi-target effects like Magic Missile, in my opinion.

Furthermore, Empowered Evocation is a poorly worded feature. By RAW, there only is one damage roll for a spell's effect (unless it has a duration and causes damage multiple times), so saying "one damage roll of any wizard evocation spell you cast" is superfluous and can be stated as "at time of casting" or "the first damage roll" or just tacking on "with an instantaneous duration" to the end of it!

I've made other posts on this before, so I shall not repeat myself in full, however in brief; 'roll the damage' is not Damage Roll - it is but a component. When you apply the 'roll once' rule, it applies to 'roll the damage', not to Damage Rolls. Hence, any feature that applies to one Damage Roll does not apply to multiple Damage Rolls by stint of the 'roll once' rule, since that rules only affects the 'roll the damage' component not the Damage Roll.

If of further interest, search out my previous posts on this subject.

[chainer1216]

MMs ability to mess with an enemy casters concentration is enough alone for it to be a must pick to me

[greenstone]

I've personally never understood the logic behind the "one dice roll" ruling for MM. And I never see the same logic applied to Eldritch Blast or Scorching Ray.

It's because magic missile is a actually an area of effect spell. A strange one (it can affect people in the area multiple times), but still an AoE.

If a casting of fireball affects 5 creatures, you roll once and use the same number on all five targets.

If a casting of magic missile affects 5 creatures (or four creatures, but one of them twice), you do the same - roll once and use the same number on all targets.

It's weird, I know.

It's also not done like this at most tables, because let's face it we like rolling lots of dice. :-)

Also, the d4 doesn't get a lot of use, so when we use it, we want to make the most of it.

[Bardon]

Yea, it's never a huge amount of damage but if you rule each missile as a separate attack, MM becomes a very potent concentration breaker. It's also nice for delivering damage when you absolutely don't want to worry about a save or a miss.

Not to mention having some additional use when an enemy is into death-save territory, if they are ruled as separate attacks a 1st-level Magic Missile guarantees they're not getting up. :smallbiggrin:

[Zhorn]

Considering the often heard complaints that low level spells become useless at higher tiers of play, I don't see recognizing any of these benefits at the table as a problem in the slightest.

[shipiaozi]

If you want to be evoker as wizard, magic missile is one of the only two viable choice.
Empowered Evocation, Hexblade Curse and probably Spirit Shroud all add damage to each missile of magic missile, so a evoker could do huge damage to single creature with magic missile.

[PattThe]

3 sources of damage. Three DC 10 saves for concentration.
I took it on my S1BX barbarian for utility.

[J.C.]

Magic Missile is great for taking out familiars, tiny servants, etc and doing reliable damage.

The Nuclear Wizard isn't played all that often since it is premised on a house rule.

[MaxWilson]

The Nuclear Wizard isn't played all that often since it is premised on a house rule.

Ironic for a guy who loves to cite Crawford Tweets as "official" "Sage Advice" rules.

Edit: for the record, it's premised on Crawford's interpretation of the "simultaneous" clause: https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/557823175581769729?s=20

[Zhorn]

Ironic for a guy who loves to cite Crawford Tweets as "official" "Sage Advice" rules.
Just checking. We're all thinking this is who we think it is, right? And we just don't have something to confirm it yet?

[J.C.]

Ironic for a guy who loves to cite Crawford Tweets as "official" "Sage Advice" rules.

{scrubbed} The Sage Advice Compendium is the official source for rulings. If a Tweet is represented in the Sage Advice Compendium then it is official. If a Tweet is not represented in the Sage Advice Compendium then it is just advice from one DM to another on how to house rule it.

[MaxWilson]

Just checking. We're all thinking this is who we think it is, right? And we just don't have something to confirm it yet?

No, this is a different guy, not the SK. This guy is just very into DM-less PvP and shapechanging because that's what's popular in the metagame he plays with (PvP gambling scenario).


You are confused here. The Sage Advice Compendium is the official source for rulings. If a Tweet is represented in the Sage Advice Compendium then it is official. If a Tweet is not represented in the Sage Advice Compendium then it is just advice from one DM to another on how to house rule it.

[checks post history]

Okay, I apologize. You don't cite Twitter. You do have some pretty dubious readings of RAW ("house rules" as you call them), but I'll let your "house rules" argue it out with Jeremy Crawford's "house rules" on Magic Missile--you don't deserve to be accused of paying attention to Twitter because you're right, you don't.

[minute]

It's an auto-hit, and you can force several concentration checks at once. It's absolutely a great spell

[J.C.]

[checks post history]

Okay, I apologize. You don't cite Twitter. You do have some pretty dubious readings of RAW ("house rules" as you call them), but I'll let your "house rules" argue it out with Jeremy Crawford's "house rules" on Magic Missile--you don't deserve to be accused of paying attention to Twitter because you're right, you don't.

Which readings of the RAW of mine do you find dubious? I try to stay close to straight logical reads of the text. Should I reconsider any of my reads of the RAW that you find forced or convoluted?

[Witty Username]

As a PSA, always take magic missile instead of chromatic orb.
3d4+3 (10.5) vs 3d8 (13.5) may look like it favors chromatic orb but the orb can miss
Even if you are dealing with 75 % hit chance (AC 10 for a 1st level wizard with 16 int) your average damage per spell cast will be less.
Or, in English, chromatic orb is sometimes a waste of a spell slot and an action to deal 0 damage. magic missile is only if used against a helmed horror.
Evokers maxim
pack missiles, never miss. pack thunder wave, hit more. pack chromatic orb, never.

[Zhorn]

Preface: run it however you like in your home games; be it either multi dice rolls or a single dice applied to all, single source of damage for single concentration check or a concentration check per dart, limit Empowered Evocation to only one dart or apply across every dart.

Just posting the page references since it has been alluded to a few times but not cited explicitly within this thread yet.

First up, damage rolls

Damage Rolls
...
If a spell or other effect deals damage to more than one target at the same time, roll the damage once for all of them. For example, when a wizard casts fireball or a cleric casts flame strike, the spell's damage is rolled once for all creatures caught in the blast.
then the spell

Magic Missile
...
You create three glowing darts of magical force. Each dart hits a creature of your choice that you can see within range. A dart deals 1d4 + 1 force damage to its target. The darts all strike simultaneously, and you can direct them to hit one creature or several.
...
It can target multiple creatures, striking them all simultaneously, making that damage rule from p196 apply.
The ability to target the same creature with more than one of those darts does not undo this.
Roll once with the 1d4+1, apply that same roll to each dart.

What distinguishes Magic Missile from other spells like Eldritch Blast or Scorching Ray is that is lacks an Attack Roll, which is what puts those other two examples under the Making an Attack rule

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.
Choose a target. Pick a target within your attack's range: a creature, an object, or a location.
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.
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.
And beyond that, neither Scorching Ray or Eldritch Blast have in their spell text they strike all targets simultaneously like Magic Missile does, so even with the Resole the attack step already having the damage roll as part of that step for each beam, neither qualify for the single damage roll condition the same way Magic Missile does.

Finally we move onto Empowered Evocation

Empowered Evocation
Beginning at 10th level, you can add your Intelligence modifier to one damage roll of any wizard evocation spell you cast.
Having previous established where the RAW is for Magic Missile doing a single damage roll for all darts, here is just a simple application of a feature that specifies it applies to one damage roll.

Now to go fully nuclear we'd need to delve into Xanathar's to multiclass into a Hexblade/Evoker build (hexvoker as some call it), but the foundational explanation for the rules used is covered here, all RAW adherent with zero reliance on house rules or tweets.

[J.C.]

If I cast Magic Missile at one target is that "one target" or "more than one target"?

[Zhorn]

And now I'm certain who this is.

[J.C.]

And now I'm certain who this is.

I am not Jeremy Crawford, but I did just point out how the rule on PHB 196 does not apply per RAW. You can house rule that it does. But reliance on house ruling is why Nuclear Wizard is not widely accepted.

[Asisreo1]

And now I'm certain who this is.
Johnny Cash! Ooh, Jeremy Clarkson!!

It has to be Jim Carrey!!!

[DwarfFighter]

My house ruling on Magic Missile is that you roll damage separately for each dart, and if you have an ability that adds to the damage of "one roll", you get to choose the dart which damage you wish to enhance.

-DF

[JNAProductions]

I am not Jeremy Crawford, but I did just point out how the rule on PHB 196 does not apply per RAW. You can house rule that it does. But reliance on house ruling is why Nuclear Wizard is not widely accepted.

It's not widely accepted or used because it's horribly out of whack with other damaging spells. Even with just the Evoker's bonus (no Hexblade's Curse) it's still significantly too powerful. And the houserule to fix it is simple and pretty intuitive, so it's rarely a big deal.

It works by RAW, it's just not fun.


My house ruling on Magic Missile is that you roll damage separately for each dart, and if you have an ability that adds to the damage of "one roll", you get to choose the dart which damage you wish to enhance.

-DF

And yeah, that's an easy way to do it, one that players won't find odd or rail against, and while not RAW, makes good sense.

[Glorthindel]

Breaking concentration with it can work, but if you're facing another spellcaster, there's a decent chance they'll have either Shield or Counterspell ready. So it's far from a garantee either. Plus, if you're counting on the enemy having low Con saves, there are better spells you can be casting. Spells with DC higher than 10 (although, true, these are usually just one save as opposed to three). All of this is assuming your DM is nice and rules that MM forces multiple saves.

This is actually one of the biggest power reductions for Magic Missile. In AD&D, if a spellcaster took damage before they got to finish casting their spell (spell casters went on the initiative count of the spell instead of rolling for initiative), the spell was disrupted, and Magic Missile had the fastest cast time of any offensive spell (it went on initiative 1, and had no material components - components added d4 to the Initiate of the spell cast). Combined with its auto-hit nature it was the perfect spell for disrupting other spellcasters larger castings. Now, it doesn't even do enough damage to increase the DC of a concentration check, so it has gone from being an ultra-reliable spell disruptor, to not.

[MaxWilson]

This is actually one of the biggest power reductions for Magic Missile. In AD&D, if a spellcaster took damage before they got to finish casting their spell (spell casters went on the initiative count of the spell instead of rolling for initiative), the spell was disrupted, and Magic Missile had the fastest cast time of any offensive spell (it went on initiative 1, and had no material components - components added d4 to the Initiate of the spell cast).

That might be a house rule. I've never heard of or played with that rule. Casting time is casting time (and it's usually equal to spell level, with some exceptions like the Power Word spells which are very fast). M doesn't increase casting time beyond what's already listed for the spell, that would just make the listed Casting Time misleading for no reason.

I suppose it's possible that it's a 1st edition thing from Unearthed Arcana or something (before my time), but I suspect that it is a house rule.

[Glorthindel]

That might be a house rule. I've never heard of or played with that rule. Casting time is casting time (and it's usually equal to spell level, with some exceptions like the Power Word spells which are very fast). M doesn't increase casting time beyond what's already listed for the spell, that would just make the listed Casting Time misleading for no reason.

I suppose it's possible that it's a 1st edition thing from Unearthed Arcana or something (before my time), but I suspect that it is a house rule.

Might be Hackmaster then; these days I have played more campaigns of that than I have AD&D and earlier, so sometimes its hard to remember if a rule in it is one they have added or if it came from the source. Still, even without the adjustment, Magic Missiles still beat any lv2 of higher cast out the gate, so is an effective disruption.

[heavyfuel]

That might be a house rule. I've never heard of or played with that rule. Casting time is casting time (and it's usually equal to spell level, with some exceptions like the Power Word spells which are very fast). M doesn't increase casting time beyond what's already listed for the spell, that would just make the listed Casting Time misleading for no reason.

I suppose it's possible that it's a 1st edition thing from Unearthed Arcana or something (before my time), but I suspect that it is a house rule.

I'm pretty sure the way Glorthindel described is how it worked in Baldur's Gate 1 and 2. MM was definitely great for interrupting spellcasters in that game.

[Tanarii]

I suppose it's possible that it's a 1st edition thing from Unearthed Arcana or something (before my time), but I suspect that it is a house rule.1e. Segments. Interrupting a spell being cast was a huge part of D&D for a while. Pretty sure 2e had rules for it too, if not the specifics due to the change in initiative in 2e. For that matter, 1e was drastically different from BECMI. And possibly oD&D and B/X were yet another version, not sure. Initiative has always been a hot button topic for D&D.

Not sure why you'd assume 2e from just AD&D btw :smallamused:

[Nifft]

1e. Segments. Interrupting a spell being cast was a huge part of D&D for a while. Pretty sure 2e had rules for it too, if not the specifics due to the change in initiative in 2e. For that matter, 1e was drastically different from BECMI. And possibly oD&D and B/X were yet another version, not sure. Initiative has always been a hot button topic for D&D.

Not sure why you'd assume 2e from just AD&D btw :smallamused:

I've always wondered if the practice of interrupting a caster (from D&D) was the original inspiration for animation-attack interrupts in video games.

It seemed natural to me in video games because I'd seen something like it in AD&D.

[MaxWilson]

1e. Segments. Interrupting a spell being cast was a huge part of D&D for a while. Pretty sure 2e had rules for it too, if not the specifics due to the change in initiative in 2e. For that matter, 1e was drastically different from BECMI. And possibly oD&D and B/X were yet another version, not sure. Initiative has always been a hot button topic for D&D.

Not sure why you'd assume 2e from just AD&D btw :smallamused:

Yes, yes, of course spell interruption is a thing--but adding an additional d4 to casting time for spells with Material components is something I've never seen or heard of. Why wouldn't you just put that extra d4 in the casting time of the spell in the first place?

You'll note that I didn't assume 2E: I explicitly noted the possibility that it might be a 1st edition thing. But I've never seen that rule in my limited exposure to 1st edition either (e.g. the Gold Box games).

[Tanarii]

Yes, yes, of course spell interruption is a thing--but adding an additional d4 to casting time for spells with Material components is something I've never seen or heard of. Why wouldn't you just put that extra d4 in the casting time of the spell in the first place?

You'll note that I didn't assume 2E: I explicitly noted the possibility that it might be a 1st edition thing. But I've never seen that rule in my limited exposure to 1st edition either (e.g. the Gold Box games).
Reading comprehension fail on my part.

The idea of material components slowing down spell casting does very vaguely ring a bell, but logically I would have expected that to be a Combat and Tactics thing ... which didn't use a point based initiative at all.

Edit: only thing I could find was Dragon 34 maybe? https://merricb.com/2014/06/18/the-casting-time-of-spells-in-dd/
Sounds like it's a hack master thing I'll bust out that monolith of a tome and delve through the endless pages looking for something.

[anthon]

Back in ye olde days of 2nd Edition AD&D and prior, Magic Missile was actually quite a useful spell, even dealing it's low damage, because HP was lower as a general rule. This made an auto-hitting 1d4+1 per missile quite a bit more valuable.

3rd Edition inflated HP quite a bit across the board as everyone could more reliably get a Con bonus and the class HD never capped as it did before. The Magic Missile damage progression, however, remained unchanged from prior editions, so it's overall effect became less noticeable. It did, however, continue to grow in power with caster level so it's value as a 1st level spell, while fairly low in early levels, was still present as the character grew.

With 5th Edition, we have Magic Missile continue to be a first level spell even though it would seem to fit better as a Cantrip. It's low-level power has been significantly increased from it's 3rd Edition variation, at least before 5th level, where it evens out and then loses power with every level after. It also seems to scale very poorly with upcasting, adding only a single missile per upcast level. Furthermore, HP has continued to grow with many classes increasing their class HD value from 3rd edition levels, making it's damage continue to feel unimpressive.

I know I've never bothered to take Magic Missile as a spell in 5e on any caster I've played with access to it. It may see value in the levels 1-3 range, but other spells are just flat out better and Cantrips eventually overtake it's damage anyway. The auto-hit nature of the spell is less valuable than ever with every class having the same attack progression, and while Force damage is valuable, I'm not convinced that's a good enough reason to take it.


your points are 100% on the nose, but you should be taking magic missile, because some classes can swap out their spells when they get permission for a new spell. Wizard, as far as I know, isn't required to memorize it and can just find a bunch of other spells in a dungeon to permanently add to their list.

At low level, you take magic missile for the non-spell book characters, then swap that out when it loses relevance, then grab it again at levels 15+.

There's a weird bell curve in 5e where at low levels, Magic Missiles DPS is a "finish him" move where many people miss frequently. Then there's this chubby gumdrop bell of levels, roughly level 3-14 where your ability to hit everything rises and rises then starts to drop back down sharply.

Eventually, you run into these legendary monsters that are like AC 25 and the +5 stat +5-6 level bonus isn't cutting it. +11 to hit 25 still requires a die roll of 14+. That's not good, especially if you "almost have it" and you factor in things like "damage can interrupt a spell concentration", a magic missile can interrupt some major concentration defense/offense or outright kill a boss on their last throws.
However, when you are looking at AC 17-20 monsters and have +9-15 to hit counting ally magic items and ranged weapon bonuses, etc., people who have to roll like a 2+ to inflict their attacks at 600 ft are probably making Magic missile feel pointless.

What i would like to emphasize though, is that many people in 5e aren't even aware of how badly their characters got nerfed like the OP said. 5e semi corrects this at level 20, but makes level 20 a sort of "no." level. Since 2014 and early playtest to the present 2021, i have been in 0 campaigns that went past level 15, even the ones that started you higher level.

Fighter THAC0 was amazing at high level, but is actually inferior to what 5e characters get for levels 1-3. THAC0 used to be one of the ways classes were distinguished from each other. That distinction is gone in 5e, so people play all sorts of class mixes creating flashy sneaker-like splashes of color and pattern.

Attack matrices got replaced with a general universal 2/1 for most classes at 5th level, a two weapon fighting with minor penalty across the board, and fighter/monk only 3-4+ matrices. Holy Avengers were gimped relative to monster HP inflation and replaced with a smite feature first introduced in 3e.

The mechanics are different. Did Magic Missile Survive? No.

I would argue Magic Missile in 5e is vague similar to BECMI (3 missiles) and slightly better than 2e and 3e, since the 1e magic missile was more like a high powered rifle. Case in point, dragons used to have about 50-88 hit points, and a 21st level wizard had 11 magic missiles per casting (11d4+11 = 22-55) at 780 ft range and ignored the first 50% magic resistance.

you could take out Tiamat in 3.32 magic missile castings. That's about 185 average damage per 1st level spell cast in 5e standards, so around 74d4+74.

The OP probably isn't aware that your character power: monster curve has dropped that significantly, and the fact that they gave you free cantrips and 3rd level fighter THAC0 + bonus actions probably pads the damage.

This padding is sort of like a heat sink, and as the anxiety of realizing your characters are astronomically more limited starts to get close, campaigns speed up to the boss fight or outright shut down and start over, with a fresh new ice cold machine back when your +2 proficiency bonus and 3d4+3 automatic hit matters.

if it's any consolation, although MOST of the classes cap in power EQUIVALENCE to a 10th level character from earlier editions, there are some tweaky tricks still available to the Wizard and a handful of builds if you want to Rock the Beard and make the earth tremble.

but i'd be lying if i didn't tell you flat out your 10d10/10d6+40 dps attacks as crowning achievements are laughable jokes in a game where HP are 2.5-4.8 times higher. This is actually also padded by very large groups. I've seen an average of 8+ players at every public D&D game, so that damage drop isn't as obvious. It just takes longer to go around the game table. If you are still playing 5e with only 4 people though, your power curve drop is more obvious and your players may become more dependent on Deus Ex Machina and online build guides.

So magic missile simply functions differently, tactically in 5e,

but i still maintain it scales better in 5e than in "holyshiz the red dragon haz almost 700 hit points!" 3.5e.

[anthon]

Yes, yes, of course spell interruption is a thing--but adding an additional d4 to casting time for spells with Material components is something I've never seen or heard of. Why wouldn't you just put that extra d4 in the casting time of the spell in the first place?

You'll note that I didn't assume 2E: I explicitly noted the possibility that it might be a 1st edition thing. But I've never seen that rule in my limited exposure to 1st edition either (e.g. the Gold Box games).


there was an unearthed arcana chain cantrip delay, but no material component spell casting modifier.

"Furthermore, the segment of the round in which the cantrip
is cast is dependent on the usual factors: surprise, initiative, and
so on. After the first of the two cantrips is cast, the magic-user must
roll a four-sided die to determine how many segments later he or she
will be able to cast the second cantrip (if so desired)."

[Tanarii]

Might be Hackmaster then; these days I have played more campaigns of that than I have AD&D and earlier, so sometimes its hard to remember if a rule in it is one they have added or if it came from the source. Still, even without the adjustment, Magic Missiles still beat any lv2 of higher cast out the gate, so is an effective disruption.


Yes, yes, of course spell interruption is a thing--but adding an additional d4 to casting time for spells with Material components is something I've never seen or heard of. Why wouldn't you just put that extra d4 in the casting time of the spell in the first place?

You'll note that I didn't assume 2E: I explicitly noted the possibility that it might be a 1st edition thing. But I've never seen that rule in my limited exposure to 1st edition either (e.g. the Gold Box games).
Circling back to this, it was almost certainly hackmaster. There is a +1d4 penalty for "search for an item", and the DM was probably including pulling a specific material component out of its pouch/backpack as searching for an item.

[MaxWilson]

Circling back to this, it was almost certainly hackmaster. There is a +1d4 penalty for "search for an item", and the DM was probably including pulling a specific material component out of its pouch/backpack as searching for an item.

Ah. That's reasonable rule, but clearly it would only apply to some spells, some of the time--a pyromaniac who's already got his bat guano in hand (and a crazed grin on his face) could cast Fireball in only three segments, with no d4 penalty.

It occurs to me now how much of Fireball's cachet comes from its ability in AD&D to (1) kill many creatures in a single spell, including trolls and 20th level archmages (35 HP with no Con bonus = average 10d6 Fireball damage), and (2) blow up in your face if you forgot to account for its need to fill the whole volume. Fireball still has a reputation even though in 5E it doesn't deserve that reputation because neither of those factors is still true. HP inflation is a tragedy.

Edit:

On topic, here's an interesting factoid: why Magic Missile is an auto-hit spell. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UjXi1HKjms

It turns out that it's an auto-hit spell because Gary Gygax hated wizards (I would never have guessed), could not understand why anyone would NOT want to be a Conan-type Fighter, and intentionally made wizards very weak and fragile to prevent them from taking over the campaign (WotC has clearly abandoned this "fragile wizard" philosophy BTW). Magic Missile was originally written to require a to-hit roll, Tim Kask managed to argue Gary into at least letting Magic Missile be an autohit on the grounds that if this weak little wizard only gets to cast one spell, at least let it kill an Ogre with 1 HP left or something instead of missing. And that's why Magic Missile never misses.

[bid]

Just checking. We're all thinking this is who we think it is, right? And we just don't have something to confirm it yet?
A baiter, master at his craft. That's all that matters.

[Theodoxus]

Preface: run it however you like in your home games; be it either multi dice rolls or a single dice applied to all, single source of damage for single concentration check or a concentration check per dart, limit Empowered Evocation to only one dart or apply across every dart.

Just posting the page references since it has been alluded to a few times but not cited explicitly within this thread yet.

First up, damage rolls

then the spell

It can target multiple creatures, striking them all simultaneously, making that damage rule from p196 apply.
The ability to target the same creature with more than one of those darts does not undo this.
Roll once with the 1d4+1, apply that same roll to each dart.

What distinguishes Magic Missile from other spells like Eldritch Blast or Scorching Ray is that is lacks an Attack Roll, which is what puts those other two examples under the Making an Attack rule

And beyond that, neither Scorching Ray or Eldritch Blast have in their spell text they strike all targets simultaneously like Magic Missile does, so even with the Resole the attack step already having the damage roll as part of that step for each beam, neither qualify for the single damage roll condition the same way Magic Missile does.

Finally we move onto Empowered Evocation

Having previous established where the RAW is for Magic Missile doing a single damage roll for all darts, here is just a simple application of a feature that specifies it applies to one damage roll.

Now to go fully nuclear we'd need to delve into Xanathar's to multiclass into a Hexblade/Evoker build (hexvoker as some call it), but the foundational explanation for the rules used is covered here, all RAW adherent with zero reliance on house rules or tweets.

It seems to me this smacks of wanting your cake and eating it too. If Twinned Spell can't be used on a spell that [CAN] but doesn't [HAVE] to target more than 1 critter, then MM should follow the same damn guidelines. "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." Ok, great - the only compromise that would be possible is: If you're using MM on a single target, each dart gets it's own damage roll. EE (and HBC) only applies to 1 dart, not all of them. The critter gets 'missile #' of Concentration saves (if pertinent). However, if you're using MM on more than one target, you roll damage once. Each dart does that amount of damage. if you toss two at critter 1 and one at critter 2, critter 1 takes 2x damage, critter 2 takes 1x damage. Both critters get 1 Concentration save (if pertinent).

Is that too complex for this simple game? Maybe - but it's the ONLY interpretation that 1) follows RAW and 2) makes any damn sense for how the spell is written (and really, if Crawford and crew wanted it to always be 1 Roll for all missiles, they should have errata'd that in by now).

[Rafaelfras]

It seems to me this smacks of wanting your cake and eating it too. If Twinned Spell can't be used on a spell that [CAN] but doesn't [HAVE] to target more than 1 critter, then MM should follow the same damn guidelines. "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." Ok, great - the only compromise that would be possible is: If you're using MM on a single target, each dart gets it's own damage roll. EE (and HBC) only applies to 1 dart, not all of them. The critter gets 'missile #' of Concentration saves (if pertinent). However, if you're using MM on more than one target, you roll damage once. Each dart does that amount of damage. if you toss two at critter 1 and one at critter 2, critter 1 takes 2x damage, critter 2 takes 1x damage. Both critters get 1 Concentration save (if pertinent).



Totally disagree. In that way you are changing the damage of the spell based on the number of targets it hits. Empowered evocation isn't twin spell, different abilities work different and I think it is intended for the evoker to have a strong single target option. I run at my table with no problems at all (with a robe of stars no less), the wizard does not overpower our warlock, barbarian, rogue monk or fighter.
I realy think the errata on evoker and dragon sorcerer hurt those classes, both weren't over performing and its nowhere near the multiclass shenanigans that bard/warlock/paladin/sorcerer can pull of.

Nuclear wizard is a valid build and rules legal. You may not like it, you may rule it out, but is a legit part of playing a evoker (and before that errata wasn't even a thing because both evokers and dragon sorc used scorching ray)

[Theodoxus]

I never said I didn't like the Nuclear Wizard - hell, I didn't even know what it was until I stumbled on this thread and googled it. I think it's perfectly valid.

What I do think, however, is that wording on page 196, very specifically, and unambiguously- it's bolded for cripes sake - is that if a spell targets multiple targets you roll a single damage die. Now, I'm reading an implied 'if and only if' and you're not and that's fine. But what I proffered was a compromise. You can handwave it away, even disagree with it, but I'm sure it will at least help frame the issue with tables who run MM the opposite that you do.

[Aimeryan]

I never said I didn't like the Nuclear Wizard - hell, I didn't even know what it was until I stumbled on this thread and googled it. I think it's perfectly valid.

What I do think, however, is that wording on page 196, very specifically, and unambiguously- it's bolded for cripes sake - is that if a spell targets multiple targets you roll a single damage die. Now, I'm reading an implied 'if and only if' and you're not and that's fine. But what I proffered was a compromise. You can handwave it away, even disagree with it, but I'm sure it will at least help frame the issue with tables who run MM the opposite that you do.

I'll say again, the RAW actually does not allow this in any case. Any feature that adds to one damage roll adds to one damage roll. Regardless of how many targets you hit at the same time, or how many times you hit the same target at the same time, each instance of damage is a separate damage roll. The rule to only roll once and use that value only replaces the variable roll amount with a static amount for all rolls - modifiers, which are a completely separate thing, are not affected.

It really comes down to people not understanding that Damage Roll =/= roll the damage. The latter is one of the components of the former, like a car battery is one of the components of a car. There is another component, modifiers, that is not affected by any substitution in the roll the damage component. Here are the relevant quotes:


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.

A Damage Roll is made up separately of both rolling the damage and of adding modifiers. The 'roll once' passage only refers to rolling the damage once for all, it does not apply to adding modifiers. To do what some people seem to think it does it would have to say this:


If a spell or other effect deals damage to more than one target at the same time, roll the damage once and use the same modifiers for all of them.


For Magic Missile with 5 missiles without the 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 (3 used for the roll):

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 simply, 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.

[Valmark]

I'll say again, the RAW actually does not allow this in any case. Any feature that adds to one damage roll adds to one damage roll. Regardless of how many targets you hit at the same time, or how many times you hit the same target at the same time, each instance of damage is a separate damage roll. The rule to only roll once and use that value only replaces the variable roll amount with a static amount for all rolls - modifiers, which are a completely separate thing, are not affected.

It really comes down to people not understanding that Damage Roll =/= roll the damage. The latter is one of the components of the former, like a car battery is one of the components of a car. There is another component, modifiers, that is not affected by any substitution in the roll the damage component. Here are the relevant quotes:





A Damage Roll is made up separately of both rolling the damage and of adding modifiers. The 'roll once' passage only refers to rolling the damage once for all, it does not apply to adding modifiers. To do what some people seem to think it does it would have to say this:




For Magic Missile with 5 missiles without the 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 (3 used for the roll):

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 simply, 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.

Given that that's neither the only reading nor the intent of the developers I strongly doubt you can say that people don't understand it- they just rule differently.

5e does have unambiguos parts but this isn't one of them.

[Rafaelfras]

I never said I didn't like the Nuclear Wizard - hell, I didn't even know what it was until I stumbled on this thread and googled it. I think it's perfectly valid.

What I do think, however, is that wording on page 196, very specifically, and unambiguously- it's bolded for cripes sake - is that if a spell targets multiple targets you roll a single damage die. Now, I'm reading an implied 'if and only if' and you're not and that's fine. But what I proffered was a compromise. You can handwave it away, even disagree with it, but I'm sure it will at least help frame the issue with tables who run MM the opposite that you do.

Got it, but yeah, I disagree hehe

On my table things are a little diferent, my PHB is pre errata and I am against changing rules mid game (our evoker choose that subclasse for a reason) so I dont have this problem whatsoever, I roll everything, apply the bonus to every roll and be done with It.
Thats why I know evokers are not overpower even If tou let EE apply to everything let alone MM

[Zhorn]

It really comes down to people not understanding that Damage Roll =/= roll the damage. The latter is one of the components of the former, like a car battery is one of the components of a car. There is another component, modifiers, that is not affected by any substitution in the roll the damage component. Here are the relevant quotes:

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.
A Damage Roll is made up separately of both rolling the damage and of adding modifiers. The 'roll once' passage only refers to rolling the damage once for all, it does not apply to adding modifiers.

That sounds a bit forced, and the explanation kinda runs counter to the wording in the books.
I can see where you're getting the separation of Damage Roll =/= roll the damage, but using that as reasoning why Nuclear Wizard doesn't work is ignoring the wording of the features used in the Nuclear Wizard build.



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


Hexblade's Curse
Starting at 1st level, you gain the ability to place a baleful curse on someone. As a bonus action, choose one creature you can see within 30 feet of you. The target is cursed for 1 minute. The curse ends early if the target dies, you die, or you are incapacitated. Until the curse ends, you gain the following benefits:
You gain a bonus to damage rolls against the cursed target. The bonus equals your proficiency bonus.
Any attack roll you make against the cursed target is a critical hit on a roll of 19 or 20 on the d20.
If the cursed target dies, you regain hit points equal to your warlock level + your Charisma modifier (minimum of 1 hit point).
You can't use this feature again until you finish a short or long rest.
If it were as you are saying, shouldn't those features be worded with the component term, roll the damage, instead of the term you are distinguishing the component from, damage roll?

Ultimately just run it at your table however you like best. I care very little for the level of RAW deviance/adherence of the games of others, so long as it works for that table and no one is using the rules/rulings antagonistically against anyone else.

But in the case of the Nuclear Wizard and how Magic Missile works, we can arrive at that with RAW alone (linking relevant rules here (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?627090-Magic-Missile-Meme-spell-or-serious-business/page2&p=24935586#post24935586), no need for the repeat), and to further back it up we have developer confirmation on the relevant mechanics;

@JeremyECrawford: (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/557820938402947072) Empowered Evocation does benefit magic missile's damage roll.

@BrailSays: (https://twitter.com/BrailSays/status/557822305452425218) +x per bolt,even on same target?

@JeremyECrawford: (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/557823175581769729) Yep. It's one damage roll, just like fireball, but that roll can damage the same target more than once.

@JeremyECrawford: (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/976147085530611712) Hexblade's Curse grants a bonus to any damage roll you make against the cursed target. That's a damage roll of any sort, whether caused by a weapon, a spell, or something else.

In regards to

(and really, if Crawford and crew wanted it to always be 1 Roll for all missiles, they should have errata'd that in by now).there is no need for any additional errata on this, since it is simple to arrive at this conclusion with existing RAW. the tweets help for clarification and confirmation, but are not necessary for the build to be valid.

I agree with Valmark on this. It's not a matter of many/most people not understanding a rule, you've just arrived at your own interpretation is that is different.
If your ruling is more fun for you and your table, awesome!
But to say:

the RAW actually does not allow this in any caseis a falsehood.

[Snails]

MM is definitely a solid spell for the "finish him" effect. But there are other options, like Sleep or Burning Hands. MM is the most reliable, but there are other options that are good enough most of the time or situationally even better.

I am starting a campaign with a low level sorcerer, and I am going to avoid MM and see how it goes...

[Theodoxus]

there is no need for any additional errata on this, since it is simple to arrive at this conclusion with existing RAW. the tweets help for clarification and confirmation, but are not necessary for the build to be valid.

The fact that there is ambiguity around it demonstrates that additional errata is most certainly needed. You have 3 people with 3 different interpretations all saying that 'it's simple, just look at the rules.' And when you get that much variation, the last thing I'd say is "let's beg off official clarification".

[Sigreid]

The fact that there is ambiguity around it demonstrates that additional errata is most certainly needed. You have 3 people with 3 different interpretations all saying that 'it's simple, just look at the rules.' And when you get that much variation, the last thing I'd say is "let's beg off official clarification".

Or, you know, you say "Each table can roll it how best suits them, and that's ok.

[Theodoxus]

Or, I don't want to port my Nuclear Wizard to an AL table where the DM has ruled it unplayable... but sure.

[MaxWilson]

The fact that there is ambiguity around it demonstrates that additional errata is most certainly needed. You have 3 people with 3 different interpretations all saying that 'it's simple, just look at the rules.' And when you get that much variation, the last thing I'd say is "let's beg off official clarification".

Touche. Point to Theodoxus.

Engarde. Pret? Allez!

[Bardon]

MM is definitely a solid spell for the "finish him" effect. But there are other options, like Sleep or Burning Hands. MM is the most reliable, but there are other options that are good enough most of the time or situationally even better.

I am starting a campaign with a low level sorcerer, and I am going to avoid MM and see how it goes...


Sleep is considered top-notch at low character levels then drops from favour rapidly - but hear me out. When you've got the bad guy on the ropes, there can be a distinct advantage to firing off Sleep instead of a damaging spell.

If the bad guy is visibly on the ropes then a Sleep spell (potentially upcast, as it adds 2d8 per spell slot higher than first) can knock him out - and there is no attack roll nor saving throw. It matches Magic Missile as one of the very rare auto-hit can't-be-saved spells. Okay elves etc I know, but it's not as useless at higher levels than people think.

[PattThe]

Sleep is considered top-notch at low character levels then drops from favour rapidly - but hear me out. When you've got the bad guy on the ropes, there can be a distinct advantage to firing off Sleep instead of a damaging spell.

If the bad guy is visibly on the ropes then a Sleep spell (potentially upcast, as it adds 2d8 per spell slot higher than first) can knock him out - and there is no attack roll nor saving throw. It matches Magic Missile as one of the very rare auto-hit can't-be-saved spells. Okay elves etc I know, but it's not as useless at higher levels than people think.

I imagined running my low level sorcerer with sleep and being able to ruin encounters from afar. However, you're never going to be in the right position to cast sleep. When push comes to shove and you're getting harassed, sleep will always end up catching you or one of your allies in the radius.

Magic missile is at least guaranteed to not cause collateral.

[MaxWilson]

Sleep is considered top-notch at low character levels then drops from favour rapidly - but hear me out. When you've got the bad guy on the ropes, there can be a distinct advantage to firing off Sleep instead of a damaging spell.

If the bad guy is visibly on the ropes then a Sleep spell (potentially upcast, as it adds 2d8 per spell slot higher than first) can knock him out - and there is no attack roll nor saving throw. It matches Magic Missile as one of the very rare auto-hit can't-be-saved spells. Okay elves etc I know, but it's not as useless at higher levels than people think.

It depends entirely on how good you are at predicting monster remaining-HP. If you think the 200 HP Efreet is at 18 HP but it's actually at 34 HP, your Sleep is useless. Even if you upcast it to Sleep II "just in case", it's still more than 50% likely to do nothing or worse than nothing (knocking out a wounded PC).

On the other hand, if you know for dead certain that it's got only 34 HP remaining because that's how your DM runs things, then I can see why you might risk a Sleep III (84% chance of rolling 34 or higher), especially if there are other monsters in the fight and you need to put this one down ASAP.

[Jerrykhor]

Sleep is considered top-notch at low character levels then drops from favour rapidly - but hear me out. When you've got the bad guy on the ropes, there can be a distinct advantage to firing off Sleep instead of a damaging spell.

If the bad guy is visibly on the ropes then a Sleep spell (potentially upcast, as it adds 2d8 per spell slot higher than first) can knock him out - and there is no attack roll nor saving throw. It matches Magic Missile as one of the very rare auto-hit can't-be-saved spells. Okay elves etc I know, but it's not as useless at higher levels than people think.

At that point your melee BSF can also cast sleep, its called dealing melee damage and knocking out the bad guy.

[Unoriginal]

The fact that there is ambiguity around it demonstrates that additional errata is most certainly needed. You have 3 people with 3 different interpretations all saying that 'it's simple, just look at the rules.' And when you get that much variation, the last thing I'd say is "let's beg off official clarification".

The official clarification is likely "we said 'rulings, not rules', not 'rule's one correct reading is X, not Y'."

[Ettina]

Sleep is considered top-notch at low character levels then drops from favour rapidly - but hear me out. When you've got the bad guy on the ropes, there can be a distinct advantage to firing off Sleep instead of a damaging spell.

If the bad guy is visibly on the ropes then a Sleep spell (potentially upcast, as it adds 2d8 per spell slot higher than first) can knock him out - and there is no attack roll nor saving throw. It matches Magic Missile as one of the very rare auto-hit can't-be-saved spells. Okay elves etc I know, but it's not as useless at higher levels than people think.

Polymorph followed by sleep is also a good option at any level. RAW you can even drop Concentration on polymorph and they stay asleep. Last night I was a guest in a solo campaign where a dragon got taken out with this combo.

[Segev]

Polymorph followed by sleep is also a good option at any level. RAW you can even drop Concentration on polymorph and they stay asleep. Last night I was a guest in a solo campaign where a dragon got taken out with this combo.

To be fair, that's more polymorph's doing than sleep's. Not saying it's a bad combo, but it's now taking a 4th level slot on top of a 1st. Also, they need to fail a save.

But yes, polymorph reducing their hp and having them hit 0 before it rolls over to the underlying creature's hp is an important point that has interesting effects. Sleep vulnerability, vulnerability to anything that triggers on being reduced to 0 hp (like a wraith's death touch or certain poisons that cause unconsciousness at that point)....

This doesn't make sleep not useful on its own, either.

Magic missile will generally be better on its own if you are dealing with something big and beefy that you can't accurately judge the hp of, though.

[Amdy_vill]

MM is mostly a bad spell in 5e only brought out of the failure by its auto-hit and force damage. while it does low damage it always hits and deals the best damage type. on top of that, the one-roll ruling makes it even better, if you roll a 4 all your darts deal 5 damage. it's not a great spell like fireball but it in the category of useful and ok to almost great spells like an eldritch blast, probably right behind eldritch blast as its just a better version of MM with unlocks moving EB from ok all the way up to almost as Great as a fireball.

[PattThe]

MM is mostly a bad spell in 5e only brought out of the failure by its auto-hit and force damage. while it does low damage it always hits and deals the best damage type. on top of that, the one-roll ruling makes it even better, if you roll a 4 all your darts deal 5 damage. it's not a great spell like fireball but it in the category of useful and ok to almost great spells like an eldritch blast, probably right behind eldritch blast as its just a better version of MM with unlocks moving EB from ok all the way up to almost as Great as a fireball.

One roll? Yuck! Might as well just take average damage on all spells. >_>

[Tanarii]

One roll? Yuck! Might as well just take average damage on all spells. >_>
Thats ... the opposite.

One roll multiplied by the number of dice is highly variable, multiple dice is fairly invariable (and more invariable the more dice), and the average is non-variable.

It's similar to (but not exactly the same as) why some players prefer Firebolt to Eldritch Blast. More of a gamble. It's more likely to do all the dice of damage, as opposed to just some of the dice of damage. But the flip side is it's far more likely to do no damage, as opposed to at least some of the dice of damage.

[Zhorn]

Ah the joys of d&d.
Starts off with just fantasy and magic, but always leads into math and probability.
I love this game :smallbiggrin:

[heavyfuel]

At that point your melee BSF can also cast sleep, its called dealing melee damage and knocking out the bad guy.

Except the BSF has to beat AC. Sleep doesn't care about that. As long as you're not fighting charm-immune creatres, Sleep just works. And if you are fighting charm-immune creatures, just prepare something else.

[N810]

I remember one time where where fighting a reoccurring and annoying boss, we had him in his last legs but we couldn't seem to land a hit due to legendary actions and lair actions, we knew he was goin to run away again, that was when our wizard had had enough and out of desperation or brilliance, he cast magic missile ... At 8th level !!! He gathered and impressive pile of d4's from al the payers and rolled (it was enough) and the day was saved.

[Nagog]

As has been expressed, auto-hit is a huge thing, as is anything that adds damage per-hit, like Hunter's Mark and Hex. With the right build, using Variant Ranger (for concentration-free HM) and Hex, Magic Missile at 1st level can deal 6d6+3d4+3 damage automatically. That's 31 damage on average, comparable to a Fireball (on a single target ofc).

It's also extremely powerful in a TSAR for Armorer Artificers. Basically a Bonus Action homing missile barrage. By 11th level, launching 9 Magic Missiles as a bonus action is extremely powerful.

[Valmark]

As has been expressed, auto-hit is a huge thing, as is anything that adds damage per-hit, like Hunter's Mark and Hex. With the right build, using Variant Ranger (for concentration-free HM) and Hex, Magic Missile at 1st level can deal 6d6+3d4+3 damage automatically. That's 31 damage on average, comparable to a Fireball (on a single target ofc).

It's also extremely powerful in a TSAR for Armorer Artificers. Basically a Bonus Action homing missile barrage. By 11th level, launching 9 Magic Missiles as a bonus action is extremely powerful.

Magic Missile doesn't scale with those features because they require an attack that hits, which MM isn't.

How are you using MM as a bonus action with the Armorers?

[Nagog]

How are you using MM as a bonus action with the Armorers?

Damon_Tor's TSARs. Spell Storing item holding a 1st or 2nd level spell, then using Tiny Servants with standing orders to activate it on pre-set conditions to have them cast the spell with their actions, using the item. Commanding them takes a BA, though in some cases you could give them an order ("Keep attacking X enemy" or "Target any enemy that gets within X feet of me", or even (loaded with Cure Wounds) "Activate this when I take damage") and keep your BA free for other stuff.

Armorers specifically get MM as a subclass spell, so it qualifies as an Artificer spell for Spell Storing Item.