I was told last night that Jeremy Crawford's clarification of magic missile with Elemental Affinity work as such: Roll one d4, add your Int modifier and then multiply that times the number of missiles. I find that hard to believe. I believe it was ruled as such: Roll a number of d4s equal to the number of missiles and then add your Int modifier to the total.
Can someone clarify the carification for me?
Adrian
I imagine you mean Empowered Evocation, as there is no Dragon type that does force damage.
Magic Missile isn't an attack spell. The power of the spell is set when you cast it and all darts hit and do the same damage, much like the power of all other non-attack damage dealing spells. So 1d4 +1 + Int in the case of Empowered Evocation.
What Danny said.
Magic Missile is a single attack that can hit multiple targets, like Fireball, but unlike Fireball it can hit the same target multiple times via darts. Magic Missile is unique.
Yunru wrote:
Wait.. I'm confused.
Let's say I cast three Magic Missiles. Do I:
1) Roll three d4's and add 1 damage to each missile.
2) Roll one d4, add 1, and multiply it by three?
Kangodo wrote:
Kangodo wrote:
I go with the "people like to roll more damage dice" interpretation. It may be true that JC's tweet means EE gets added per each dart. That shouldn't stop you from rolling for each dart like Gygax intended! Besides, how many players do you know that already have trouble with simple addition? You expect them to multiply too?
Until I see a direct tweet from JC saying that you roll once, add all mods to that roll and then apply that total for each of the missiles you get, I'm going to keep saying that the interpretation doesn't seem correct.
Noctaem wrote:
Yes, it's pretty clear from all the rules and clarification that it is intended that each spell only has one damage roll in 5E. But most people have more fun rolling for each missiles. But at least it tells us that the int bonus is intended to be applied to the damage of every missile.
Bloodscythe wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
I know. 
I appreciate that you're trying to get a response and I wasn't trying to imply that you hadn't been trying.
Noctaem wrote:
To me it seems that Jeremy's tweet is basically his own personal house rule. His tweets don't change the text of the rules in the rule books.
I don't even believe it could be considered the original RAI (Rules As Intended) since this ruling only appeared recently and for months everyone, including Mike Mearls was running Magic Missile the way that God and Gygax intended. Namely, roll 1d4+1 per missile and apply to each target. If multiple missiles hit the same target add the rolls for those missiles together to get a total. Simple, easy, intuitive. Why make it more complicated than it needs to be?
In addition, if you go with Jeremy's tweet it actually messes up Chain Lightning. If you just go with the natural reading, everything works. If you try to force everything into a precise reading of every rule in the books, things will start to break down. The rules were not written to be used in that way.
LordTwig wrote:
Yunru wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
I disagree.... you are putting too fine a limit on the phrase 'same time'.
Does everyone get hit by a lightning bolt at the 'same time'?
Does everyone get hit by a fireball at the 'same time'?
The spell description *clearly states* that the bolt starts and travels a distance.
The spell description *clearly states* that the fireball starts small and expands.
So if you shoot the bolt down a hall, it will technically hit the guy 10' away before the guy 50' away. The bolt hits the first guy, then the next, then the next, etc.
So if you center the fireball in the middle of the room, it will technically his the guy standing in the middle before the guy standing at the edge.
As you can see, getting hit at the 'same time' is not measured in femtoseconds... it is a relative term that spans a really short, but non-zero, amount of time.
I see no reason to believe that the 4 targets of chain lightning are not struck at the 'same time'.
LordTwig wrote:
You could read the chain lightning description to mean that they are separate effects, but it seems to me that the description of how the lightning moves is just flavor justifying how the four targets are chosen. I think the real problem is the general rule's use of the term 'at the same time', when there doesn't seem to be a good standard for what that means (except for when the spell it self claims simultaneous effects), so it is loosey-goosey and open for interpretation. I think they've done themselves and us a great disservice by trying to be so specific in the general rule, and not follow up by being clear in the actual spells.
Wuzzard wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
LordTwig wrote: