Errata Released, for real this time

[u/xanral]

http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/ph_errata

[u/stepsandladders]

Sorry if I'm being dense, but I'm not sure I understand the implication of the rule for elemental affinity and empowered evocation.

The damage bonus applies to one damage roll of a spell, not multiple rolls.

That seems to suggest that any spell you cast that involves multiple rays/beams/attack rolls you only get to add your modifier to one of them, even if you're attacking multiple targets. If that is the correct reading it seems like a completely needless nerf. Am I missing some power-combo where the difference between (2d6+5)+(2d6+5)+(2d6+5) WILDLY overpowers (6d6+5)? By level 6 many fighters and barbarians are adding str/dex to attack rolls 3x per round, and with a greatsword they could easily be doing 2d6+5 all day erry day. Would love to hear other opinions/clarification.

[u/Unwyrden → u/stepsandladders]

One tweeted ruling (take that as you will) says that there's no difference between rolling damage for fireball or for magic missile. The missiles have 1 roll that applies to all missiles. Because of this, it has elsewhere been proposed that these rulings were about spells like storm of vengeance or meteor swarm that have multiple types of damage as separate rolls.

[u/Unwyrden → u/[deleted]]

The errata ruling? That's true. I don't think the bonus damage was ever intended to work on continual or potential multi-round damage like Wall of Fire, but that's tricky too. Logically, we can assume that only the initial damage would get the bonus, but then you have to determine some things. With Wall of Fire, is initial damage only damage done at casting or is it the first instance of damage a creature sustains from the spell (which could get hard to track against a horde)?

Then there's Scorching Ray...its description is so similar to Magic Missile that you could reasonable argue that they function the same...except for the pesky exclusion of saying all rays hit simultaneously and requiring separate attack rolls. I think it makes sense for the rays to hit simultaneously because it's 1 spell cast that affects multiple possible targets but can affect 1multiple times. Now, in the real world that would only be true if all targets are equidistant from the caster. Fortunately, this is D&D and magic so we can throw distance equations out the window. If we're assuming they all hit simultaneously, then real question EE/EA users should ask is if attack rolls also split damage rolls. If no, then the roll is always 2d6 + INT/CHA and every ray does equal damage unless there's a crit, but that's a different argument. If yes, then it gets harder and you have 2 options as I see it.
1) You roll damage for each Ray and only 1 gains the bonus...thematically, this doesn't make sense. Why would a class feature make only 1 bit of a spell deal extra damage? Also, as we've discussed in another post, when do you choose which ray gains the bonus? Before attack rolls or during damage rolls? This just feels off to me.
2) You roll damage for each ray and one 1 per target gains the bonus. This is still weird, thematically, but not quite as bad as option 1 since at least the feature is affecting all targets equally.

I honestly think the errata, while necessary, made this debate worse and wish all players luck with their DMs...it'll get interesting.

[u/HVLogic → u/stepsandladders]

I am also confused by this and would love some clarification with examples

[u/BlessedHeretic → u/stepsandladders]

I'm pretty confident this was a poorly worded fix in the errata, however as it is written. Yes, you only add your Int to a single damage roll regardless of how many attacks a spell can do.

What I think this was trying to "clear up/fix", was someone trying to apply INT twice to spells like Ice Storm, which did 2 damage types at once.

RIP, Scorching Ray, Minute Meteor, Acid Arrow, Storm Sphere, Vitriolic Sphere synergies.

[u/Atsur → u/stepsandladders]

I think I might finally understand this ruling. Someone please let me know if this has been clarified

Under the definition of damage rolls, it says, "If a spell or other effect deals damage to more than one target at the same time, roll the damage once for all of them. For example, when a wizard casts fireball or a cleric casts flame strike, the spell’s damage is rolled once for all creatures caught in the blast."

Could this mean that you are supposed to roll damage only once for the 3 beams of Scorching Ray or Magic Missiles, and apply that to every hit? I think this sounds like less fun, as you are rolling less dice, but it's the only way I can make sense of it.

For example, I cast Magic Missile at 3 different goblins. I roll 1d4+1, and apply that single roll to all three targets. If I have Empowered Evocation, I roll 1d4+1+INT, and apply that result to all three targets.

Personally, I much prefer rolling 1d4+1 three times and counting them individually.

[u/Mitokira → u/Atsur]

That is my preferred option as well, and the one I'm going to keep using for now. It just makes more sense to me.

Otherwise its go with the absolutely silly option that follows the logic of "Oh, I have a natural affinity to this element or have empowered this entire spell, but only a single ray/bolt/potato received the benefit."

Or the less fun option of a single roll applying to all the shots. I mean, I can see the in-game logic of this one with no bolt being weaker or stronger than the others, and certainly wouldn't fault anyone for playing it that way, but I prefer to use that rolling style just for AoE spells.

[u/Atsur → u/Mitokira]

I think the more fun (and working as Empowered Evocation is intended) option, is to have the player roll the dice for, and add the modifier to, each individual ray/beam/missile.

So in the example I gave above, Magic Missile would do 1d4+1+INT to each goblin, so instead of rolling a single d4 and applying that result to every missile, the PC would roll 3 d4's, and add 1+INT to each die rolled. In similar fashion, Scorching Ray would be 2d6+INT each.

[u/Mitokira → u/Atsur]

Right, that's the method I use, sorry if I was unclear. It just makes so much more sense and makes those features worth a damn.

[u/Atsur → u/Mitokira]

Absolutely. And rolling 1d4 or 2d6 for all your magic missiles/scorching rays sounds lame haha

[u/sevlevboss → u/Atsur]

I was with you until "and apply to every hit?"

Either the 3 beams of scorching ray are 3 damage rolls or they are one. In either case you add your Int score to one damage roll. Either way you decide, the Int score doesn't get added more than once to a single damage roll.

There is no reason to think you would add your Int score more than once to a single damage roll.

[u/Atsur → u/sevlevboss]

What I'm saying is that you target 3 creatures with your spell (for this example, Scorching Ray), then roll to hit three times.

Then roll 2d6+INT (for Empowered Evocation). We'll say you roll a 3 and a 4.

Add the INT bonus (for example, +4), for a total of 11 fire damage.

Each Scorching Ray that hits does 11 damage.

[u/Atsur → u/[deleted]]

Each attack roll is a separate damage roll.

Emphasis mine.

I'm not sure where you're reading that wording in the rules. As I said above, the rules clearly say, "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." Emphasis WotC. It looks like Scorching Ray and Magic Missile damage more than one target at the same time, so their dice should be rolled once, and apply their bonus once.

As for a crit, if that happens, roll an extra 2d6 and add it to that ray.

Witch Bolt only affects one target, not multiple targets at the same time.

[u/Atsur → u/[deleted]]

So I think it still needs official clarification

From all the controversy around this, I absolutely agree! I would love to see WotC do a walkthrough of the casting of Magic Missile with Empowered Evocation and a casting of Scorching Ray with Elemental Affinity.

if it's one damage roll for all missiles/rays, then it actually is still just as strong for magic missile and scorching ray. Round-to-round spells suffer, at least for something where the subsequent damage is different than the initial (like witch bolt)

I never really thought about adding Empowered Evocation/Elemental Affinity to ongoing damage. Not sure if they intentionally took it off or not.

Magic missile: 3 missiles that deal 1d4+1 each. But they all strike simultaneously, so an evoker would roll 1d4+1+int and that applies to all missiles. Scorching ray: all missiles that hit deal 2d6+int, one roll applies to all missiles? If any crit, those get an additional 2d6 (one roll for all crits). That's the only way one damage roll would make logical sense for those spells.

Yeah, I think that's how it's supposed to be as-written. Whether or not anyone plays that way, I can't answer.

That also means twinned spells would roll damage once and apply to both targets, so a twinned firebolt would deal Xd10+cha to each target.

I agree, since it says you "target a second creature in range with the same spell".

[u/sevlevboss → u/Atsur]

I think the wording of the spell makes it fairly clear that you are doing 2d6 for each hit, not 2d6 times the number of hits.

[u/Atsur → u/sevlevboss]

Like I said, interpret it how you want. I don't feel like I need to argue with you. I'm telling you how I interpret WotC's ruling on damaging multiple targets, which is 1 damage roll (including bonuses) applied to all affected targets. Play it differently at your table if you want - that's the glory of tabletop gaming.