Alright, I'm going to drop a couple of quotes here, and see what you think:
Damage Rolls, Original 5e PHB p196 wrote:
FarBeyondC wrote:
You have it correct. Magic Missile is an exception to the general rules. In addition it does not resolve like normal attacks because there is no attack roll, you just determine damage done to the targets.
I'm not so sure about that - by your reading, if I focus-fire, they take 1d4+1 damage, not 3d4+3.
Each dart does 1d4, it does not state that each dart does the same amount of damage.
hmm... I misread the quote too. The wording is specifically for when a spell or effect hits multiple targets, like in the case of Fireball.
If you cast Magic Missile, and focus on a single target, you aren't hitting multiple targets, so this rule wouldn't be applicable. Each dart would deal 1d4+1, and you'd roll damage separately for each attack. I'm not sure why you'd then change how you resolve the darts' attacks just because you spread the attacks out among more than one target.
I think the rule is meant to handle AoE attack spells, that can only hit a particular target once, but can hit a number of targets. Magic Missile can hit the same target more than once.
Although, I don't see any harm in rolling a single d4 and applying the result to each dart's target.
Darryl wrote:
Uh... what?
You roll 1d4+1 for each missle. Those are separate d4 rolls for each missle.
The striking simulatenous part is about having all the missles that hit a target considered one unified attack against that target (probably for the purpose of breaking concentration).
It really doesn't matter how you do it.
FarbeuyondC, I was just about to post this same thing.
Since Magic Missile is simultaneous, there is just one damage roll, and each missile does the same damage. This is also why Improved Evocation works with *each* magic missile, because there is only 1 damage roll. So you roll 1 D4, add +1 and add +Int and get (lets say) an '8'. Then each dart does 8 damage, if you hit someone with more than one dart, they take 8 damage from each dart.
Remember this 'confusing' tweet from January?
JC: "Yep. It's one damage roll, just like fireball, but that roll can damage the same target more than once." One damage roll... just like fireball.
There are more tweets that say the same thing
Coredump00 wrote:
So wait, then it does matter, because Empowered Evocation applies to each bolt?
jaelis wrote:
I have no clue where any of you are getting the idea that you only roll one die and use the same result for each dart. It is baffling me. Please share.
Wuzzard wrote:
Yeah, I don't understand why anyone would think you only roll once for each missile either. Plus I thought the errata just said you only add the bonus once per spell. So it wouldn't matter how many missiles you had.
Rolling only once would make the results more swingy.
Rolling only once would be less fun as it is fun to roll more dice. That's the bottom line.
From the Basic rules:
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 creates 3 darts. A dart does 1d4+1. Why whould you ever assume you don't roll more than once?
Because Jeramy Crawford. the rules guy said so.
@BrailSays: Could we please get an official RAW ruling on +damage to Magic Missile/etc? Very heated debate about it on the reddits >_>
@JeremyECrawford: If you summarize the issue, I'll tackle it.
@BrailSays: say you have +3 to spell damage from feature. Magic missile 3 bolts. +3 per bolt or flat +3?
@JeremyECrawford: Depends on the feature's wording@BrailSays: evo wizards lvl 10 feature? don't know exact words
@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.
While the Eratta doesn't change his tweets about the number of dice rolled it does change Empowered Evocation to state only one die roll is amplified on a spell attack. If you rule that each bolt is a separate roll then only one dart will do the extra damage from EE. If you choose one roll applies to all bolts then EE will emplify the damage of every bolt.
boo. roll 1d4 for each missile. add +1 to each. It's tradition. Screw wording.
Although, when adding bonuses outside the spell's description, I've found if you get multiple shots that aren't simultaneous, the extra bonuses are per shot (or attack roll). Otherwise, Wizards tends to always rule in favor of bonuses being the least possible, while players tend to go for whatever produces the most bonuses possible. Poor DM wants both.
Bloodscythe wrote:
FarBeyondC wrote:
FarBeyondC wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
jaelis wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
I still don't see how you get from "one damage roll" to "roll one die". Clearly if you've got three darts and each does 1d4+1 then you have one damage roll of 3d4+3. That's the way magic missile has always worked. Why would you chose to interpret the wording to mean something so arbitrarily bizarre, when the more straight forward interpretation leads you to the way it's always worked?
This JC tweet was about whether some other ability that applies a bonus once per damage roll would be applied to each missile separately, and Jeremry responded that it would not because it was just one damage roll. And that's lead many of you off the deep end into thinking all sorts of rediculous higgery-pokery, nincompoopry.
Nevvur wrote:
Wuzzard wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Hmm... I can see still rolling individual d4s for each bolt, and adding all the rolls together into a "single damage roll" for purposes of getting by damage mitigation. If a creature reduces each hit by 3 hit points, but all 3 bolts are treated as one damage source, the creature's mitigation won't reduce each bolt by 3... instead it would simply reduce the bolt's cumulative damage by 3. It makes Magic Missile more useful against creatures with magic resistance.
magic missile damage roll on separate targets is one roll per target, Wizard Evocation enhancement dealy adds only one bonus per spell cast on one roll. so like, if your spell had 5 bolts, and you rolled damage on 5 dudes, you would pick one dude to get the evocation bonus. This is NOT as good as the warlock eldritch steroids, and it is purposely phrased to suck.
Knowing this, we are easily able to comprehend that it is +1-5 damage to spells that normally do 15-60, making the EE power kinda shite. We deal with it's shite-ness and pretend it isn't bollocks cause we all know at higher level, we can max damage later on.
My second 'character' is an NPC evoker that tags along with the party. He's got this same shite package. Sure, he aint no Raistlin, but he keeps them out of trouble. Now see, I'm the DM, I could rule it how ever i wanted to, but shite is shite. If I make a PC character, I'm probably going to go stare at large vats of Acid at the alchemist guild and play a conjurer...
Pretty dumb to use different methods to roll damage of a spell. That is pretty much the opposite of simplifying.
It is even possible to interpret the spell in a way that would allow each individual dart to damage EVERY creature you choose within the range of the spell.
You may direct the darts to hit one creature OR SEVERAL.
So, I direct each dart to hit several creatures...
Pretty nifty, eh!?
Byakugan01 wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
Nevvur wrote:
Yunru wrote:
shintashi wrote:
It's one that most people will 'house rule' I expect. Otherwise a 7-charge wand of magic missiles fully expended has a 25% chance to auto-kill most 1st level character builds in the game except a Shield spell user (and what DM will have a villain fire magic missiles at a wizard char??). Since there is such an item in one of the published adventures that is intended for a 1st level party, and since I am about to run that adventure, I'll be rolling individually from the start.
I'm racked with turmoil about playing a villain with a wand of magic missiles by the way. If it was *me* with the wand and 4-5 adventurers came charging at me I would probably max out and hit the strongest warrior character with all 7 bolts as my first action. At least take someone with me. That is going to be brutal. Any thoughts? Or would that hijack the thread, sorry...
Wuzzard wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
sim-h wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Wuzzard wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Wuzzard wrote:
Also, I think many of you must be confusing the term "damage roll" with the physical act of rolling dice. Damage roll is a game term that refers to rolling and totalling up the damage dice and bonuses after a succesful attack is made. Generally there is one damage roll per attack, unless an ability or spell says otherwise.
If I attack with a 2d6 weapon and hit, I can roll the two damage dice at once and add them together, or I can roll each die individually and add them together, or I can roll one die twice and add both results. The rolling of them separately and adding them together does not consititue multiple damage rolls.
Likewise, if I attack with a magic missle spell, and I get three darts, each doing 1d4+1, I can roll 3 d4's at once, or I can roll them separately and add them together, and its all still one damage roll. If I select multiple targets for my darts, I can choose how many darts go to each target and I can roll the ones for each target separately, and still the whole affair is one damage roll.
I don't have to come at it with twisted logic and assume the only way that this can be one damage roll is if I physically roll all the dice onto the table in one motion, leaving me with the quandry of allotting them to targets after the numbers are known, forcing me to throw up my hands and shout "this must not be what the rules meant, because that would imply cheating!" thus proving that only one die can ever be rolled, because that's the only way to avoid cheating and have a sindle rolling of dice. QED. 
Wuzzard wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
It has been sometime since I have posted here but following this thread made me want to answer and point out that there is a flaw in thinking that it 3 missiles is 3d4+3.
As previously mentioned, MM specifically states that all damage is done simultaneously. And can target more than one creature. That right there, is enough, when reading the Damage Roll rules in the PHB, to realize that it has changed.
Damage Roll, PHB pg. 196, second paragraph, second collumn
If a spell or any other effect deals damage to MORE THAN ONE TARGET at the same time, roll the damage once for all of them.
It says what the damage is for a dart. It then says you create 3 darts that can hit MORE THAN ONE TARGET at the same time. That falls under the above mentioned rule. The damage roll given in the spell is 1d4+1. The MM attack is 3 darts. The spell only has a single damage roll based on the rules.
Scorching Ray says that you make a ranged spell attack. On a hit, you deal 2d6 damage. That is the damage roll for 1 attack. If you don't hit with the next attack, you do not get to roll the damage roll for that attack. Eldritch Blast at higher levels is the same thing as Scorching Ray.
Part of the flaw is in thinking that each dart is a separate attack. It isn't. MM is a single attack, which generates 3+ darts. Each dart doing 1d4+1 (+mod if an evoker). Since it is a single attack, it has a single damage roll equal to 1 dart. Each dart does that damage. So the damage is 2-5 x number of darts generated (if you are not an evoker).
Edited by Koshinuke
Koshinuke wrote:
Past edition baggage should be left there: the past.
LordTwig wrote:
Yunru wrote:
So Scorching Ray can effect more than one target. Do you roll once and have all beams do the same damage?
Note, the correct answer is: No. That would be stupid.
LordTwig wrote:
Yunru wrote:
With magic missle you are making one attack and dividing the damage between multiple targets.
With fireball you are making one area of effect attack and applying the same damage to each target
With scorching ray you are making multiple attacks, each with its own damage roll.
These are all very different.
Wuzzard wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
Wuzzard wrote:
Koshinuke wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Originally, everyone was using magic missile exactly the way we always did in every other iteration of DnD....Then someone got Empowered Evocation and people were told that it didn't apply to each magic missile, but that it did for Scorching ray...So all the evokers swapped to spamming invisible Scorching rays at single targets...Then Jeremy Crawford tweeted that EE did actually work on each missile, just like scorching ray. But that was explicitly contested by someone else's statements around the same time. It was around the same time they were acknowleging that Maximized Evocation technically allowed casting of cantrips all day long, but that it was unintentional.
Eratta clarified that EE only applies to one damage roll per target....So 3 magic missiles hitting 3 targets would deal 1d4+1+mod to each target...but 2 targets getting hit by 1 and 2 missiles each would only take 1d4+1+mod and 2d4+2+mod respectively. One target getting hit by 3 missiles takes 3d4+3+mod ONE time...Not 1d4+1+mod 3 seperate times. That implies all sorts of other rules interactions with things like concentration.
Yunru wrote:
Prove to me that every session of AL play is played with exactly the same interpretation of every rule. I've seen play in the same FLGS run on different a priori interpretations of the same rules. You are, quite simply, wrong.
AL is designed to minimize blatant rules conflicts between those varied interpretations (and does so fairly well); but, it does not make every DM rule the same, in all adjudications.
Nevvur wrote:
AL doesn't succeed in enforcing interpretations because it can't enforce them, not because it lacks the will. Ideally, every DM would use the same interpretation for every rule, but AL staff acknowledges this isn't ossible by adding the caveat that DM rulings are final. This doesn't mean the AL staff condones DMs making crap rulings, but they lack the resources to address anything except the most disruptive cases (and even then, maybe not). We're on an honor system that we'll abide by the rules as written.
So as it relates to the original post and AL, there is a correct way of running magic missile as described by the rules lawyer JC, and an incorrect way. It's not going to break the whole organized play campaign if people keep rolling 1d4 three times. Obviously. But they're wrong, and players in the campaign are entitled to expect their DMs to run the game correctly.
I realise this is a RAW discussion supported by Jeremy Crawford's tweets
and that it is a new edition,
but in the case of Magic Missle, this is a boon of D&D, and to change the fundamental nature of rolling multiple d4's to that of just 1d4(X targets) borders on sacrilege .
in this case, Crawford, for all his rulesyness, is dead wrong. and I for one will be house -ruling this for the damage range of 3d4+3 ( 6-15) versus the sequencial damage possibilies of 6, 9,12, or 15
and I feel many DM's will, and would, do the same, except for perhaps a few new ones who have come here and been directed otherwise
Nevvur wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
Nevvur wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Nevvur wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
FarBeyondC wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
This is a great change! This is so much better!
FarBeyondC wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
Is there something I'm missing? I just reread the tweets and I completely disagree with the conclusions others are drawing. That, and I hate twitter.
All of the damage happens at the same moment, whether there are one or more targets, just like fireball. It does not say you use one die roll. Nor does it state you add the same modifier to each die roll.
Brail "+x per bolt,even on same target?" Jeremy "Yep. It's one damage roll, just like fireball, but that roll can damage the same target more than once." @S_McMahon617 "Elemental Affinity lets you apply the bonus to one damage roll per spell."
From the errata: "The damage bonus applies to one damage roll of a spell, not multiple rolls."
So if you add +4 for your Empowered Evocation damage:
- If you have 3 magic missiles I roll 3d4 (all at the same time). Damage is 1d4+5, 1d4+1, 1d4+1, If targeting one creature that would be 3d4+7, However I can target one or more creatures, all missiles strike simultaneously and I choose which die to use for which target.
- If I cast fireball, I roll 8d6 (all at the same time). Damage is 8d6+4, not 8d6+32,
So yes, magic missile works just like fireball. What's the question again? 
OoftaMeg wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
And OoftaMeg has proved my point. The rules don't make any sense when you put them together.
I am not trying to dispute what Jeremy said. I agree with you on your interpretation of what he said. Roll 1d4 and use that one roll of one die for all of the missiles. What I strongly dispute is that it makes perfect sense, it is simple, it works consistently, and that it follows all of the rules. It is not simple, sensible or easy to follow and it does not follow all of the rules. You should not have to look up a rule on how you do damage to multiple targets to figure out how to roll damage for magic missile when it only hits one target. Honestly you shouldn't have to look up anything at all. It should be clear just by reading the spell. If it were really easy to understand then the thousands of players currently playing D&D would have caught this rules interaction months ago.
And as others have already said (or implied) in this thread. This is one of D&D's sacred cows. People got upset when they tried to change it in 4th edition. Why would they think it would be any different this time?
Edit: Oh, and I hate twitter. It is a horrible way to try to clarify anything. Let alone a rules system that consists of hundreds of pages.
OoftaMeg wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
AFAICT Jeremy was just clarifying a question asked about multiple damage rolls with magic missle in context of a feature that adds bonus damage once per damage roll and was clearly trying to stop abuse/misuse of the feature being mistakenly applied multiple times. So instead of just accepting that, you just keep going deeper down that rabbit hole.
I read his tweet and I interpret him saying that the dice used to roll damage for magic missile is considered one damage roll. Great, that's how I think of it too. You know like all the dice rolled for fireball is just one damage roll. This clearly only comes into play when you consider that other rule that hinges on there being a term called "damage roll."
I can see how you must being going all nutty over the phrase "but that roll can damage the same target more than once", and are working backward from there infering that there can only ever be one die rolled, because how else would you be applying it multiple times to the same target? I read that and assume he mispoke, and was attempting to explain some difference in comparision to fireaball, due to there being multiple darts and not one big blast. I assume he meant something more like "but because a target can be struck more than once, the damage is not always the same for each target." Yes, I'm aware he did not actually say that.
I work on a very technical product that is chock full of even more strict/complex rules that D&D combat mechanics. I see experts on it misspeak about it all the time, even me.
Bloodscythe wrote:
Wuzzard wrote:
Wuzzard wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Wuzzard wrote:
Yunru wrote:
If you only roll 1 d4, instead of 3, you get a very different distribution for the damage. Both min and max damage each occur 25% of the time. Whereas, with 3d4, you get a bell curve and the min and the max each only occur about 1.5% of the time.
I didn't make one, just adding information.
BUT, it would be unprecidented to have such a distribution. Which might make you think that possibly, just maybe, someone's got it wrong, somewhere.
Wuzzard wrote:
Wuzzard wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
I went back t o the tweets and found:
Coredump00 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
FarBeyondC wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
If you read the spell description, you can legally just have each dart cause damage to an unlimited number of targets within range anyways. People are just assuming the darts only.
I get 3 missiles....they each target all 15 enemies in range...they all take 3d4+3+mod. And since mearls said you can hit a creature more than once, all 15 of those enemies actually takes 3d4+3+mod THREE times.
Awesome!
OoftaMeg wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
FarBeyondC wrote:
Byakugan01 wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Byakugan01 wrote:
FarBeyondC wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
The problem is that, as this forum often demonstrates, the individual's definition of what is a "stupid situation" can vary wildly from DM to DM. Give DM's too much power and it just devolves during organized play. I mean we've seen people on this forum says that a rogue using sneak attack multiple times during a round is stupid, the whole hand crossbow fiasco, now the move and attack thread and so on. I don't really want some of the people in those threads to have the kind of power you're advocating because they would just screw everything up.
OoftaMeg wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Given that you seem to be the only one saying the tweet is unclear as apposed to not right, you didn't fix it, you broke it.
Yunru wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Appreciated.
Noctaem wrote:
That's... supposed to clarify things?
I do maths at university and it still makes me go "bwah?" to glance over it.
"For Magic Missile do you roll 1d4 and apply that to every beam, or roll a d4 seperately for each beam?"
Yunru wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Be careful with your wager... betting is illegal in some areas so it could potentially be a violation of the code of conduct.
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
Yunru wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
The whole single d4 argument sounds like a desparate attempt to bend reality to make it so that Empowered Evocation applies to each dart, when clearly JC was trying to limit it. Mike tried to limit it to each target taking damage, but JC limits it even further and basically says "no, only once per spell cast."
Aha, we say, that may be the way it is, but given one phrase from a tweet that we've possibly misintrepretted or taken out of context, we deduce that if there is only one damage roll of one d4 and it gets multiplied by the # of darts, then we get to add the bonus from EE to that one damage roll and its effect gets multiplied too. We've beat the system. Yeah!
[hangs head and sighs]
Without the confusion of the tweet, this line of argument has nothing to go on. A tweet is not a rule, even coming from the rule guy. Yes, it could be a clarification, but he wasn't responding to the question about the # of d4's rolled, so at best, its not a clarification of that.
Yunru wrote:
Wuzzard wrote:
Okay, this was on the first page, so many of you may have missed it. So before I agree to take everyone's money on bets I think are a sure thing... I should at least repost these...
JC has made *several* tweets on this exact issue, both before and after the errata.
Anyone still willing to bet... here is my claim.
When you cast magic missile, there is but one damage roll. It is 1D4+1+modifiers. Each Dart does that much damage, each dart does the same damage. If a target is hit with multiple darts, it takes the damage multiple times. Emp Evok applies to each dart.
We know that MM has only "one damage roll"
We know that Emp Evok works one *each dart"
We know that Scorching Ray has 'multiple damage rolls"
We know that magic missile only has one damage roll.
There is no rule that allows you to 'split up' a damage roll.
If you are rolling 5D4 and deciding how to apply that damage 1) you are making up rules that don't exist 2) you are not making 1 damage roll, you are making different rolls at the same time.
And lets think about this phrase... "that one roll can damage the same target more than once". How does that phrase work unless my interpretation is correct..?? How do you have one roll, and have that one roll damage the same target more than once...??
as for the Mearls Tweet.... that was from Sept 2... and Mearls has quite a history of getting the rules way wrong. This is just one example, there are many many more. He finally stopped answering because of all the confusion he was causing. JC is the one that deals with clarifying the rules.
Orethalion wrote:
Oh, as far as I can tell... no one is saying this rule is 'obvious' or the spell is explicit..... heck I have been playing it the other way too. But I have been tracking this, because his tweet in January struck me as odd... and now I know why. Because MM is 'odd' since it hits simultaneously and thus only needs one damage roll.
Which also explains why Mearls got it wrong, since its an odd edge case of the rules....
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Following the links provided it looks like this is from just last month:
Again, this is a horrible ruling and should be changed back to the original intent, which is that each dart of a Magic Missile get its own damage roll.
And yes, I know things change. A lot of the changes have been great, some I have not liked. This one I actively detest. Yes, my feeling on this is that strong.
I guarantee this will make more people unhappy than happy. Is that what they really want to do? Make their customers unhappy? Because this will succeed at that.
Edit: Edited the above post to reflect it was actually last month, not yesterday. I forgot it is July, not June. 
LordTwig wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
And I guess you would roll individual for each target in a Chain Lightning spell? Therefore only one of the targets would get the Empowered Evocation bonus.
But not Lightning Bolt. It would get just one roll and Empowered Evocation would be done to all targets.
Lightning Bolt
LordTwig wrote:
Why would JC clarify the rule (and add it to errata) in a way that makes EE work for only one ray of scorching ray, but every dart of magic missile?
Wuzzard wrote:
Ive removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting/personal attacks are violations of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code of Conduct here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the Report Post button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
Yunru wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Wuzzard wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
An experiment for anyone... Next time you have a new player at your table -- one has never played D&D of any edition before -- ask him how he thinks Magic Missile works.
Challenge: don't weight the question with your grognardism!
Nevvur wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Yunru wrote:
I still think JC has no idea what people are actually trying to ask him.
He keeps giving short answers to short questions that never spell out the whole question in context.
There is a whole bunch of nuanced questions tied up in this argument, spanning more than a year of discussion, including the interractions of 2 different class abilities and more than one spell.
The argument hardly even actually matters because Emp Evocation is a 10th level ability, and 5th and 6th spells are typically much more efficient as board wipes. In most folks don't even have a 10th level character. If they did, then they probably bought into the next tier anyways.
Orethalion wrote:
Yunru wrote:
As far as Chain lightning, another good pick for the original intent vs new edition ruling argument.
Originally, the bolt of lightning got weaker on successive targets ' ...after the first strike, the lightning arcs to the nearest object or creature. Each jump reduces the strength of the lightning by 1d6', and later it was changed to 'The secondary bolts each strike one target and deal half as much damage as the primary one did (rounded down).' That is the spell created new bolts after each target which were weaker. For me, this spell has, by 5th edition, lost any logical connection to the original idea of a forked lightning charge ( which grounds out in that spell desciption when coming into contact with iron or liquid).
So, as I see it
- original intent - seperate damage rolls for each new target of the spell ( less 1d6, damage strength determined by level), until the spell runs out of oomf (d6's) or is 'grounded' <<Most logical
- by 3.5 edition - one damage roll which is halved for each new target, only arcs once to as many targets per level of caster<<Best simplicity, but not necessarily logical
- 5E - ( according to some RAW interpretations) one damage roll for first target, it then arcs to three new targets for the same damage<< least logical
According to the 5E RAW argument being made, the lightning bolt has a set damage strength which does not weaken, but has a finite duration ( set number of targets), and this, for me, does not sound like chain lightning at all, that is, a bolt of arced energy being aborbed by targets until it is completely absorbed. If this then is the interpretation, may as well make it a new spell, call it Force Split, have it initially deal damage to four targets with the possibility of more per spell slot, with only one damage roll for all targets...at least this makes some logical sense.
Anyhow, again it is a spell specific, as with Magic Missle, where in the uniquity of the spell belies a need for better desciptors to clarify it's operation. We lose alot from the game when we over simplify these things, and we must remember that being a spell caster is not easy, nor was it ever, knowing the nuances of your spell repertoire is part of playing the class.
Radaceus wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Pulpnoir wrote:
Pulpnoir wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Radaceus wrote:
Yunru wrote:
well if magical lightnign is different than natural lightning, save versus lightning/electricity dont work unless they are saves versus magical lightning /electricy ( same goes for any damage type)
the means of drawing on the respective planes of energy is magical, the energy itself is not. force damage might arguably be construed as of magical nature, I'll give you that one ( though with the advent of psionics, we may have to accept force damage as also adhering to natural laws of physics)
Radaceus wrote:
Regarding Chain Lightning...
The important part of the damage roll rule is that the spell or other effect hits multiple targets at the same time.
Even if you argued that the three leaping bolts struck their targets at the same time- something not explicitly stated, by the way- that would just mean that those three targets would take the same damage.
The original target would definitely roll a different 10d8 for damage than the secondary targets.
FarBeyondC wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
it makes no difference if damage is magical, it is still a focussed and directed energy of the appropriate damage type
regardless of if magical lightning is magical lightning...it is still lightning, et all magical lightning = lightning damage for all intensive purposes, if one wants to make their campaign universe in such a way that magical damage is different than natural damage( i.e. does nto draw on a plane of energy but creates that energy via magic) that is also fine, but the rules do not differentiate this, for if this were the case damage types woudl need to be amended to allow for the differentiation.
Radaceus wrote:
Radaceus wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Radaceus wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Here's the thing. All over the place magic changes reality. The reality is that you can't fly. The fly spell alters reality. Why is it such a stretch for magical lightning to be altered a bit from reality and keep the damage the same with successive targets? In my opinion it isn't a stretch at all. It's still lightning damage, but it doesn't diminish.
Radaceus wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Radaceus wrote:
As far as I know, the only damage type in 5e that has any distinction between magical and non-magical is Fire, because create bonfire.
I still prefer the interpretation of magic missile where the darts hit unlimited targets and they ALL take (1d4+1)*the number of darts summoned.
Radaceus wrote:
Radaceus wrote:
I've removed content from this thread because flaming/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code of Conduct HERE
Let's keep the chat on topic and aviod personal attacks, please! We all love the game, so let's keep discussions appropriate. We can disagree without baiting others! 
lawrencehoy wrote:
Wuzzard wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Actually, this is demonstrated perfectly by the feat elemental adept, which allows you choose an element and your spells then ignore resistance to that element. This feat would be utterly pointless if fire resistance did not work on fire damage from spells,
I would like to point out that if you shoot a flaming arrow into an anti-magic field, the arrow will still be on fire when it hits its target. But if you shoot a Fire Bolt into an anti-magic field the bolt will wink out of existance. So there is normal fire and magical fire. However I believe they would both just cause "fire damage", not "normal fire damage" or "magical fire damage".
LordTwig wrote:
In either case of how you rule the damage works for Magic Missile, does it really matter one way or the other if you have to pick the targets as you go for each dart (like in the case of Eldritch Blast's beams and Scorching Ray's rays), or choose them all at the start of casting?
TheCriticalFail wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Nevvur wrote:
Nevvur wrote:
tyrionlannister2113 wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Byakugan01 wrote:
Kangodo wrote:
Kangodo wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
Yunru wrote:
The difference here, and this should be immediately clear to anyone who participates in these discussions, is that when someone presents something as fact with corroborating evidence (like rules quotes, tweet quotes, etc..) and says that something works a specific way vs someone says it doesn't because of a random half quoted definition from some random online website. There should really not be a 20 page discussion about which argument is right. But alas, you're living proof.
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
It's getting a little confusing in here!
Actually I think that Jeremy really was saying that you only roll 1d4+1 once and apply it to all missiles. I do not think this was what was intended when they wrote the rules. I think this is Jeremy going back, reading what they previously wrote, and coming up with a new ruling based on that. Therefore his tweets would reflect this new understanding of what they actually wrote, but not what they originally intended to write.
I'm sure that he knew what he was writing when he (or Mike Mearls) wrote when they wrote the Magic Missile description, but they probably didn't realize the interaction it would have with the other part of the rules on Damage Rolls in the Combat section.
LordTwig wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
Nevvur wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Yunru wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Yunru wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
What does an archer and his targetting have to do with Magic Missile?
Bloodscythe wrote:
Kangodo wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Kangodo wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Kangodo wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
More!
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.
Kangodo wrote:
Kangodo wrote:
Not to mention and frankly this is one of the more powerful pieces of evidence: THE SPELL THAT EXISTS TO COUNTER MAGIC MISSILE REPEATEDLY SAYS MAGIC MISSILE IS AN ATTACK. It's in black and white people! Just look at the spell SHIELD. When one game element references another one and calls it an attack or attacks, that's what they are regardless of your bs.
Bloodscythe wrote:
texassnowman wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
texassnowman wrote:
Welp I'm confused.
Noctaem wrote:
Kangodo wrote:
Right, this is exactly why I'm confused now. You have a bunch of game elements that are now considered "not attacks" so don't break invisibility and the like, don't benefit from things that trigger off making attacks. I mean this works both ways... Now we have spell and non spell game elements that aren't considered attacks and yet deal damage, grant effects and so on... This makes no sense at all.
Noctaem wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
texassnowman wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
texassnowman wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
How is this still an issue. The PHB defines what an attack is, and JC supported it. Yes, and attack needs to include an attack roll. (or stated as an explicit exception)
Noctaem made the same claims in a different thread, and when I proved him wrong threre, he just moves over here to make the same erroneous claims???
Yep, it makes for some weird edge cases.... but luckily the game is designed to be played with a DM....otoh, an invisible dragonborn breathing fire just isn't that big of a deal.
MM is not an attack
Create bonfire is not an attack
firebolt is an attack
grapple is an attack.
How would Want of the War mage help with burning hands anyway...???
Notice that Rod of the pact keeper specifically calls out attacks *and* saveing throws.... because eldritch blast is an attack, but Hellish Rebuke is not.
Coredump00 wrote:
For invisibility: "The spell ends for a target that attacks or casts a spell. "
So if my PC casts invisibility on Bob, if Bob casts any spell, the spell ends for Bob.
Of course there are other spells such as improved invisibility that don't have the restriction.
Interesting though. Spells like Sanctuary specifically state "If the warded creature makes an attack or casts a spell that affects an enemy creature, this spell ends."
In most cases it probably doesn't make much of a difference except for things like Sentinel and of course hex.
I can see this swinging both ways, but I see the initial ruling as roling once for an area effect spell. Since magic missle isn't an area effect, I would count them as independent bolts, plus, I like how it works in the game better.
Also, we have the probabilty issue. If you roll one d4, you get a constant probablity curve, equal chance of dealing max or min damage, whereas you roll multiple d4s you get a average response that's more towards the expected value of the d4
Noctaem wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Kangodo wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
I don't understand the significance between attacking during casting and attacking after casting.
Mechanically there is no difference. Currently there is no feature in the game that can interrupt a spell between individual spell attacks. An interruption to a instantaneous spell, no matter how it occurs, currently prevents the spell's entire effect from ever occuring. Either the spell affects things, or it does nothing at all. There is no such thing, within the ruleset, as a spell affecting 2 of 5 targets and then being interrupted. If a spell can affect up to 5 targets, but is interrupted, it affects 0 targets, every time. If it has already affected 2 of 5 targets, there is no feature in the game that can interrupt the spell at this point, since it is already affecting targets.
Is this more to do with spells with a longer duration than instantaneous? Like can witch bolt hit a target on its 1st round, then be interrupted so it doesn't affect a creature in subsequent rounds? No. Concentration on the spell can be ended. The casting can't be interrupted though because the spell was already cast or it wouldn't have done its initial damage.
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Yunru wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
The bucket analogy makes no sense.
The duration of the water is not instantaneous, so it probably not very compareable to instantaneous evocation spells, which literally have 'no' duration.
I'm not actually sure what you guys are even arguing about? That you pick the targets of a spell during the casting? That seems pretty intuitively obvious.
It's not like when a wizard gets hit by a magic missile spell and casts the shield spell, he retroactively stops the mage from casting the spell in the first place....he was still targeted and the spell was cast at him....he was not 'attacked' because MM is not an attack in rules terms....but when the town guard shows up he can certainly tell them 'That guy attacked me first!'. You don't cast the magic missile spell.....then change your targets after the wizard casts shield spell.
I see an argument that the CASTER is not technically targeting the victims of say fireballs and Cones of Cold, even though the spells mention targets. So there may be a mechanical interaction I can't think off off hand....but something like a ring of spell turning, and the Ioun Stone specify area effect spells aren't affected. I can't think of an ability that distinguishes between 'when you target' versus 'when an effect that you created but that is not you specifically targets'.
I am still of the opinion that Magic Missile cast at 3rd level generates 5 missiles...Say you hit 1 target with 1 missile and 2 targets with 2 each....that is 1 target taking 1d4+1(plus possibly int mod), and the other 2 guys both taking 2d4+2(plus possibly Int mod, but NOT int mod twice)...So as far as dice rolls are concerned, you rolled damage 2 times, and the second value gets applied to the 2 guys that were hit with the 'same' effect.
If I hit 1 target with 1, 1 target with 2, then 1 target with 3 missiles each, then I would have to roll damage 3 times....If I hit 1 target with 6 missiles, my spell is only damaging them 1 time.
I get that coredump wants to find a new OP loophole since Scorching Ray got nerfed, but I am not buying the disjointed out of context tweet argument.
So here is a Question....If a Sorcerer gets hit with a Suggestion on him to force him to ONLY target a specific person with his next spell, can he then Twincast scorching rays and fireballs at that person, as those spells would then be NOT CAPABLE of targeting other creatures?
Orethalion wrote:
Byakugan01 wrote:
Byakugan01 wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Byakugan01 wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Yunru wrote:
(/quote) I don't know why you even brought duration into this. We were discussing area of effect, not duration.(/end quote)
This thread was about magic missile wasn't it? Magic missile isn't a area of effect spell.
Discussing readying spells is not really part of the argument either. If there was a problem in this department it would be because of poor definition of the Ready action, rather than the normal rules for spellcasting. By your logic, you couldn't ready actions to attack people either because when you readied your melee attack they would not be in range. Clearly one of the highlights of the readying actions is to be able to target and affect people who are not initially in range/visible when your turn occurs.
Maybe I'm just biased though because I've never actually played a 5e game where anyone bothered with concentration when readying spells. My players are mostly experienced gamers, and the concentration mechanic is a headache of a mechanic to keep track of. Very often we forget our spells even require it, then even if we do we forget that we have to roll checks when we take damage, or we forget to notice that a spell effects go away when someone goes unconscious, or we can't figure out if someone can take a rest while concentrating, etc...the whole mechanic does little to accomplish their stated desire. Or, imo at least, little that wasn't already accomplished by the slow scaling of DCs, granting less spell slots, having a smaller pool of spells in the first place, the reduced ability to stack bonuses(due to simplification), and the general nerfing of almost all control type spells. It does add unneeded complexity, and makes 50% of the spells in the PHB utterly unuseable though. My players start reading spells and hit Concentration:yes and just skip to the next one. The cleric already has bless, the warlock already has Hex, ranger has HM, Pally has Shield of Faith, Sorcs get Haste, most other options look terrible.
Yunru wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Yunru wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
@Ooftameg
I dont understand what you just said.
OoftaMeg wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Viddicus wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Good catch. So let me revise:
1) It's Bob the Warlock's turn. Bob is invisible.
2) Bob begins to cast Eldritch Blast
3) I have Counterspell, but I cannot see Bob to use it (you can't Counterspell a caster or target you cannot see).
4) Suddenly, a beam of energy blasts me after which I now see Bob (the attack makes him visible) ahead of me glaring at me with a wicked smile. Several other beams attempt to impale me, but I manage to dodge the rest.
Orethalion wrote:
Viddicus wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
"Casting a spell" looks like this:
[1) casting a spell]->[2) spell is cast successfully]->[3) magical energies are released. Spell effect exists]
During step 1, you can attempt counterspell, or attack the caster in the hopes of causing them to fail a concentration check. Or cast silence. Or cast hold person. etc. It depends on the action economy. Obviously, if they're casting a spell with a casting time of 1 action or less, your options are limited to counterspell.
During step 2, which is only reached if Step 1 is not interrupted, the spell is cast completely, successfully. The spell is 100% cast. Now at this point the spell cannot be counterspelled.
Between 2 and 3, you can hold the magical energies, in the case of readying a spell.
During step 3, which can only be reached if A) you were successful casting your spell, and had reached step 2, and B) between steps 2 and 3, you don't fail a concentration check per the rules of readying a spell, the spell effect of the spell you cast (past tense) now exists and affects targets.
Because "Casting a Spell" looks like this, Targets, Attack rolls, Saving Throws, and Areas of Effect are all subheadings under Casting A Spell. They all relate to Casting A Spell... they are all relevant rules when you finish casting your spell successfully and release magical energy. They however are not relevant during casting. Spells don't have an effect unless you cast your spell successfully, which means you must first finish casting your spell without interruption, then AFTER successfully casting your spell, the spell has an effect.
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Viddicus wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Viddicus wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Viddicus wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Viddicus wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
*Steps in thread*
...
*Steps back out*
...
*Finds random passerby*
"Excuse me, good sir. Can you tell me where the thread that used to be about how the spell magic missile interacted with the damage rolls rules went, because I no longer see it?
FarBeyondC wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Viddicus wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
I think we're approaching this with different definitions of what mechanical and fluff mean. To me, fluff is something that has no effect on the game. That would mean a change in the shape of your eye is fluff. Absolutely zero effect on the game. A DM could houserule that this change allows the character to intimidate better or something, but there's nothing in the RAW mechanically that has anything to do with the shape of your eyes.
There is no immediate bonus or penatly in a white room situation like the one were discussing unless an outside source is introduced. That shouldn't be used to mean that there couldn't be in actual play however or that using a spell to change someone's physical features via a spell isn't considered a mechanical effect. It is, just like changing a creature's foot print in the mud to throw off someone who is trying to track it, is a mechanical effect. That's left up to DM fiat essentially and the scenario in play. What if the shape of the eye is what grants darkvision to a creature? I mean there's lots of scenarios where you could say that changing the shape of the eye can have direct mechanical effects outside of already being one on its own.
However, saying that instead of an eruption of flame it's an eruption of kittens with everything else being exactly the same mechanically is not a mechanical effect. We all agree on this point. What don't seem to agree on is that using a spell to make a change, either permanent or temporary, to another game element is a mechanical effect regardless of what that element is.
Orethalion wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
FarBeyondC wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Let's say I'm a brown-eyed PC attempting to disguise myself as a blue-eyed PC - and I change my eye accordingly. Then I argue I should get a bonus on my disguise roll. That's not fluff, that's a legitimate claim for a mechanical advantage based on my having done a mechanical effect that I would not have otherwise been able to do.
It might not be a very strong mechanical effect, but that's one of the reasons it is not fluff, but rather mechanical - I might expect that used in the right situations, I could potentially gain mechanical benefits based on how I control the use of a spell.
Bloodscythe wrote:
Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
/facepalm
lawrencehoy wrote:
Ok, I am just throwing in my two cents.
The boy kicked the ball. = Cause
The ball rolled away = Effect
small, big, red, blond, softly, squishy = Description
The small blond boy softly kicked the big red squishy ball rolling it away. Cause AND Effect AND Description.... all in one.
The fat ugly boy angrily kicked the hard red ball rolling it away. SAME cause AND SAME effect... DIFFERENT Description... all in one.
To me that is the mechanical difference vs fluff difference. In the two sentences, the same cause had the same effect... but different descriptions. So IMHO in game, if it doesnt effect a number, it is fluff. If the changing the eyes doesn't affect any rolls, it is purely fluff. If the changing of the eyes causes a bonus to a roll (disguise or intimidation) then it is mechanical.
HOW you USE the results of the spell determine wether or not the change is mechanical or fluff.
AND every time it is cast, it can be both a mechanical change AND a fluff change OR one OR the other. And that can change with every single cast.
Yunru wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
In fact if one applies it to the eating food scenario....
food in stomach = cause
recieve dessert = effect
Doesnt even matter HOW the food makes it in, just that it does.
The description is shoveling with hands or daintily with a fork
either way, mechanically you recieve a dessert
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
MrDiceGuy wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
MrDiceGuy wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
MrDiceGuy wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
if you are invisible and you cast a ritual spell...you stay invisible until your ritual is finished casting?
if my ally is in the middle of casting a ritual and i cast invisibility on them, then they are invisible because they already started 'casting' the spell?
Byakugan01 wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
You roll 8d6 and everything in the AoE takes this damage (or half if they make the Dex save). Whether or not there is actually something in the area is irrelevant. However to save time a DM might tell you to not bother rolling 8d6 when you shoot a Fireball into the empty sky.
Rikjuh wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Rikjuh wrote:
There is no such thing as "fluff" in spell descriptions. The spell does exactly what it says in the box:
For Fireball this means shoot a ball of fire (which coincidently happens to deal damage).
For Fly this means letting something fly.
For Eldritch Blast that means creating crackling beams of energy (which happen to deal damage to the thing they hit).
Who are we to judge that some parts of the spell text is just fluff and others are the effect? If someone wants to use Fireball to do nothing beside (shortly) illuminate the area then that's quite a relevant effect.
PS: Not argueing "against" anyone yet, though based on your summary I guess against Orethalion, just opened with a statement and following from there.
PPS: It appears that this is indeed a continuation of the "selecting targets" discussion.
Rikjuh wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Rikjuh wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Rikjuh wrote:
Rikjuh wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Begin casting the spell -> Do the V,S, M requirements if any and spend the relevant action -> Finish Casting the Spell (COUNTERSPELL CAN NO LONGER BE USED) -> Gain the effect(s) of the spell (attacks of EB, required saves of Fireball, etc..) -> Make attacks, resolve saves, resolve damage, generate zones, etc... -> Spell is resolved.
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote: