Magic Missile: Meme spell or serious business?

[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

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-c...-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.

Spoiler: Mathematical view

Show

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:

Spoiler: Mathematical view

Show

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, no need for the repeat), and to further back it up we have developer confirmation on the relevant mechanics;

@JeremyECrawford: Empowered Evocation does benefit magic missile's damage roll.

@BrailSays: +x per bolt,even on same target?

@JeremyECrawford: Yep. It's one damage roll, just like fireball, but that roll can damage the same target more than once.

@JeremyECrawford: 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 case

is 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