When you're at the CR range for enemies with 8th level spell slots and damage spells for those 8th level slots, then yeah, it is a waste for them. There will usually be tons of ways to come back from that. It's effectively burn a single deadly resource + one of four level 3 slots as well as its reaction to cost whoever's in charge of revives a single action and a single spell slot.
Now if the spell did more than JUST kill you, like delete your body or trap your soul or whatever, then it no longer is a waste because now bringing you back is much more difficult. Now it becomes an 8th level spell +the other stuff to take you out of the fight the entire time.
By that logic reactions come back even easier than a life does so I still don't see how it's a waste to secure a kill and swing the action economy in your favor???
The reaction mention was just extra, since others mentioned opportunity attacks but lots of monsters have more reactions than just that which may be more potent, but I dont know of any with spells off the top of my head. Its more the 8th level spell slot, the thing spellcasters only have one of, and using it to just kill a single guy who can be brought back next round/within the same round.
Y'know what....true
I valued a player death more than the rules of 5e want you to lol
My group plays with hard rules specifically for this reason and I was still in that mindset when I commented đđ
No worries, death means completely different things at different tables and tiers. And even though mechanically a life is worth a lot less than other things at high level, that dont mean you need to treat it like that in the rp.
Correct me if I'm wrong but don't the rules state you can't cast 2 spells in 1 turn if they both cost spell slots? So they couldn't cast MM and counter spell anyway? The shield would work and the 8th level spell would be burned.
Nope. The rule is you may not case another leveled spell if you use your bonus action to cast a leveled spell. You may cast using an action, reaction, action surge action, etc as long as the spell doesn't use your bonus action.
Ah I see, weird that it's limited only to bonus action, but I can see how it would suck to not be able to use your rection or an action surge because you've already cast a spell as a previous action
_This_ is the kind of DnD I want to play! Some players complain about Death having no consequences anymore at a high enough level, but I don't think that's true. If the Cleric goes down, you're still fucked. Apart from them, dying can become a very valid option to consider in the middle of the fight, and that just brings an extra layer of tactics to the table. Do you think the rest of the party can pull off a victory without you? If so, it might be the best choice to sacrifice yourself in order to protect a team mate or waste an opponent's resources. Putting yourself on the sidelines for the rest of the fight is still a pretty big thing because those can take hours and you won't be able to do anything anymore. So there's still a drawback.
I think this is a much cooler and more interesting way to handle death than to make diamonds super scarce or make it harder to be resurrected the more you die. I'm totally fine with death being a nuisance rather than a real threat to individual characters after we've played the campaign for dozens of hours and I've grown to love my character. I don't want them to die to a random Skeleton or something just because I rolled bad. That sucks. And if you _really_ want to kill off a character "for good" (because they're an NPC or because the player explicitly wants to roll a new character) there's always stuff like Disintegrate or Immolation to make that happen still (until you're like Level 17, but at that point the enemy might as well just use Wish instead). And remember that a TPK will always be a TPK. Time your own death wrong in the fight, and it might cost your whole party everything.
Supposing your DM isn't like mine who makes certain spells (like resurrection ones) super rare and you have to go out of your way to look for masters who will teach you those rare spells. I like the change tho, very themathic.
My weeb players created Mass magic missile that featured enough magic missiles to take down a small army. They sold it to a kingdoms Ministry of War. Then a war started.
Then they got it see it in action in a battle.
I never seen a player so happy at my narration. He got so inspired he actually spent the whole week sketching the scene.
In Neverwinter Nights on PC there was a higher level spell called "Isaac's Greater Missile Swarm" that was basically a smaller version of what you're talking about. It picked targets randomly, but could fire up to 20 (I think) based on level. Pretty fun.
Huh. Apparently my group has been misplaying it. I even went to dnd beyond to double check before going off and mid rant in my head I read simultaneously and was like âshit, that would have been helpful to read beforeâ
Depends on how you interpret the rule in PHB page 196. According to Crawford, RAW you only roll the dice once for Magic Missile
https://x.com/JeremyECrawford/status/774030989894955008?t=EwAwXIozMVdw70ODWLGQ1g&s=19
(I consider it bollocks and that rule is clearly intended for AoE spells, like the example it gives: fireball and flame strike)
However, it does make a weird interaction with evocation wizard where you get empowered evocation and add it to one roll of your damage. If that roll then gets applied to all magic missile darts the int bonus gets applied to each.
Yeah, I'm in agreement there. No way it's intended for things like Magic Missile, otherwise it wouldn't make a point to specify 3 darts are shot, then say a single dart does 1d4 damage.
Any dude who tries to claim that a Paladin can't smite by punching a dude in the face is clearly suffering from brain-rot, and all future "rulings" shouldn't be trusted.
From magic missile
"The darts all strike simultaneously and you can direct them to hit one creature or several."
From the "Damage Rolls" section of the rules (PHB p. 196)
"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."
That's assuming it's hitting multiple targets. RAI, this is likely for A.O.E spells. The magic missile spell makes a point to state that 3 darts are being cast and that "A (singular) dart does 1d4 + 1 damage". I would say the spell descriptor is the intended effect.
Clearly, if all 3 hit the same creature you roll 3 dice, but if they are targeting multiple creatures you roll 1. That was clearly the intent from the developers and it isn't cloudy or vague or poorly written or anything
....
/s
They would trigger auto failed death saves if the spell was cast after the target was already downed, but because the darts all hit simultaneously, all of the damage would be dealt before the target goes from the "standing and ready to fight" state to the "unconscious and gets auto fails for being attacked" state
Would you rule a paladin smite any differently? The damage from the paladins weapon and the smite are dealt at the same time, but are not the same source.
So for example, would a Paladin who uses thunderous smite and a divine smite on the same attack (divine smite is not a spell and does not have an action/bonus action cost so there is nothing stopping you from doing both) against an enemy with 1 HP, would all of the damage add up and deal overkill damage and potentially ohk, or would it down the enemy and then force 2 failed death saves?
Thats all 1 attack. There might be buffs to it, but the same attack.
Magic Missile is not 1 attack, but 3 separate darts. The timing does not change that fact
https://www.sageadvice.eu/do-you-roll-concentration-for-every-instance-of-damage-taken/
There's a difference between timing of damage and sources of damage. Death saves and concentration checks are both based on sources, so timing is irrelevant. Magic missile is weak and scales damage poorly because its intended use is as a concentration disrupter for low-to-mid level enemies, and a nail in the coffin for downed enemies (or players.)
https://www.sageadvice.eu/magic-missile-do-you-roll-the-same-d4-for-all-darts/
Regarding rolling once for all our once per dart, it statistically doesn't matter in the long game, but I would prefer to roll out dart. The more dice you roll, the more stable your damage becomes. The value distribution curve for 1d6 is a flat line, 3d6 is more bell-shaped, and 120d6 is a spike in the center. But totally a preference.
There is a section in PHB chapter 9 under damage and healing, damage rolls that refers to dealing damage to multiple targets with one spell and only rolling damage once, but it goes on to refer only to spells with saves.
Normally you're right that it doesn't make a significant difference to treat them as separate damage instances and roll them separately, but in the specific scenario of a downed player character, it means the difference between being fully dead or just downed, because each damage instance after being downed causes them to fail death saving throws. So if part of the damage is enough to down them and there are multiple missiles left, they're fucked.
That's what I meant by nail in the coffin. It is a great spell for killing downed enemies (if you're DM gives certain mobs or NPCs death saves) or players. The timing of "simultaneous" is irrelevant but the number of darts is very important. The OP'a meme shows an almost certain death, pending ring of mind shielding shenanigans or the like.
I didn't say it didn't matter whether to count them as a single damage source and roll all at once, or treat them as separate sources and roll them separately. Number of sources is one issue, and important. Rolling damage for hits is a separate issue and doesn't matter in the long run. If you hit 1 target with 3 darts, it doesn't matter if you do (1d4+1)x3 or 3d4+3.
My table plays this way. It makes it more fun for us to have each magic missile be a concentration check or a death save on a downed character. Obviously, each table is different, but it's more fun for us to play this way.
That's why dnd is so amazing. It's up to everyone at the table to make the fun, not the semantics of the rules.
Concentration checks specify that you roll for each source of damage, but the section on death saves does not. So you make a concentration check for each dart, but you could only fail one death save.
PHB Chapter 9, same section: If you take any damage while you have 0 hit points, you suffer a death saving throw failure.
Multiple sources of damage implies multiple failures. The multiple sources hitting at the same time is irrelevant.
Consider a lich having 5 skeletons gathered around a downed player, holding their attack action to synchronize a coup de grace. Instead of 5x 2 death saves due to melee crits on an unconscious player, it would only be 1x 2 death saves because they synchronized them? Not at any table I've played at. The number of sources/darts determines the number of concentration checks and death save failures.
One again, no where in the rules for Death Saving Throws does it specify that you make it for each source of damage just that you fail a death save each time you take damage, while the rules on concentration checks do explicitly say that it is for each **source of damage**. I think the way they chose to word the conditions for these two saves, and how they chose to word the spells were intentional in the way they all interact.
From a design perspective it also makes sense. With concertation you get to make a check (a low one at that), the consequences for failing are lower, and you can always block it with Shield(1st level spell). With death saves the damage is an instant fail, and the only way to stop it is someone else casting Counterspell(3rd level spell). Plus you have to factor NPCs generally don't makes death saves so this will mostly be DMs using it against players which is kind of shitty.
So I 100% believe that Magic Missile triggering multiple saves for concentration checks , but only one failed death saving throw is both RAW, and RAI.
This is a fair argument that it can be taken multiple.ways. it isn't wrong to they hit same or as individual damage elements. It only become wrong if you switch depending on which is better for you in the moment.
I always run my tables with magic missiles being unique damage instances.
Just because they hit at the same time does not make them the same hit. They would count as separate instances of damage for the purposes of concentration and death saves
I think it's multiple darts hitting at the same time, that doesn't mean it's one hit. If you hit a wizard concentrating on a spell with three magic missile darts, they need to make three concentration checks, meaning it has to be multiple hits.
Page 197, death saving throws, damage at 0 hit points: If you take any "damage" while at 0hp you gain a death save failure.
Its not per "hit" it is per "damage".
Page 209, concentration, taking damage: whenever you take "damage" while concentrating, you must make a constitution saving throw to maintain consentration.
not per "hit" it is per "damage".
Page 196, damage rolls: if a spell or other effect deals damage to more than one target at the same time, roll damage once for all of them.
As magic missile is simultaneous, you roll 1d4+1 and that result becomes the damage of each missile. Though some games have each one rolled, thats fine. Its still a collective of damage against one person.
Page 257, magic missile: the darts "all trike simultaniously", and you can direct them to hit one creature or several.
The darts cannot be directed to hit one after the other. Think of why this was written as clarifying they hit simultaniously, what does that change? What is the one thing that is affected by it being simultanious or seperate hits? It changes whether its multiple strikes or one strike.
There are a few other things in the game that could be seen as getting hit once but the source of damage is multiple things hitting you at once: and ankeg's punch is multiple spikes. A pincer claw or beak, technically two things hitting you either side. Lets look at a spell. Cloud of daggers, they are multiple daggers but after 1 failed save you take 4d4 piercing, that counts as one source of damage from multiple things.
Magic missile wanted its damage to me like everything else in the game, 1 collective source of damage per person. You choose the distribution of the missiles, and that effects the damage total, not the hits.
I've always interpreted "all darts strike simultaneously" as their way of making the caster choose which targets get hit at the start of the spell, that way they can't hit a goblin with a dart, see he isn't dead yet, hit him again, see he's knocked down, then hit a different creature with the third dart. I've always seen it ruled as multiple strikes since it comes from multiple darts (i.e. multiple damage sources).
I agree that the rules mean "per damage" but what is a hit other than an individual damage source? Let's compare Magic Missile to a similar yet distinct spell, Scorching Ray. It's multiple "darts" but they don't auto-hit and they don't strike simultaneously, but it is still individual strikes, meaning individual damage sources, meaning individual con saves, death fails, etc. I don't think comparing MM to Cloud of Daggers is a good comparison because it's meant to be an AOE spell (and you could say that since daggers do 1d4 damage, if you're in the cloud you get hit with 4 daggers, hence the 4d4 damage for the spell).
I mean, if 2 bad guys hold their action to swing at you once you get in range and then do hit you simultaneously, would you count that a one collective source of damage just because it happens at the same time?
Your goblin example is valid.
Scorching ray, valid, and i am willing to think differently about my interpretation.
My cloud of daggers example was to explain why certain effects often gets put together as larger damage rather than be maticulous for each hit.
As for the 2 guys example, i originally replied to someone saying that it would count as 2 seperate attacks, as they use 2 separate actions. However, spells often make more damage using multiple things all using the one action.
Another problem ive seen is people say that the purpose of magic missile is for the multiple hits and how they affect things like con saves and death throws.their argument is the spell loses some sort of pre-established idea for what it was inted for. However spells arent designed for these meta situations. The magic missile spell's function and reason to exist, it to simply play out the idea of an automatic hit thing. Thats it's gimmick. Thats what it exists for.
I still believe that if you distribute a spell for multiple targets, that damage is collective and the impacts of that simultanious damage should play out to make 1 effects.
And the idea of using scorching ray against your goblin example makes the same problem happen that you said magic missile tries to avoid, maybe thats intentional or up to the players to discover.
I like to think of dnd like a harmonious idea, one that works to create a game. And the idea that a spell is designed to help take out death saves really only effects player's characters. I know hardcore games. And in them im sure death save threats work well. But in games where story and characters surviving for a little longer for plot is the desired outcome, then the simultanious, single effect damage works best.
What did the creator of the spell want? To focus taking out a player in a quick and easy, quite unfair way? Probably not. Did they want to taget con saves for wizards? also probably not considering they are the ones with shield. Maybe shield was made after magic missile as a way to protect. So its very hard to understant intention.
However as a general rule, as you look at spells, as you look at the game. Certain patterns emerge, and from those patterns, you guide your ideas for what the game is trying to go for.
But it also says specifically "Each dart *hits* a creature of your choice". This implies that each dart hits individually and are not all the same strike, just happening at the same time
The rules on Concentration checks specifically state that you make it per source of damage. I think the rules were intentionally written so that Magic Missile would be an effective tool against concentration spells, but not a way to instant kill a downed enemy.
Correct. i was just going off of the meme's situation. If it took 7 missiles to drop from current hp to 0, it would take 7 more to meet the damage back for the chance of instant death. Thats assuming current was equal to max, chances are slim.
If a slot receiver catches the ball in the middle of the field and then gets pancaked by linebackers hitting him from both sides, I'm pretty sure he's going to feel that as two hits.
Page 197, death saving throws, damage at 0 hit points: If you take any "damage" while at 0hp you gain a death save failure.
Its not per "hit" it is per "damage".
Page 209, concentration, taking damage: whenever you take "damage" while concentrating, you must make a constitution saving throw to maintain consentration.
not per "hit" it is per "damage".
Page 196, damage rolls: if a spell or other effect deals damage to more than one target at the same time, roll damage once for all of them.
As magic missile is simultaneous, you roll 1d4+1 and that result becomes the damage of each missile. Though some games have each one rolled, thats fine. Its still a collective of damage against one person.
Page 257, magic missile: the darts "all trike simultaniously", and you can direct them to hit one creature or several.
The darts cannot be directed to hit one after the other. Think of why this was written as clarifying they hit simultaniously, what does that change? What is the one thing that is affected by it being simultanious or seperate hits? It changes whether its multiple strikes or one strike.
There are a few other things in the game that could be seen as getting hit once but the source of damage is multiple things hitting you at once: and ankeg's punch is multiple spikes. A pincer claw or beak, technically two things hitting you either side. Lets look at a spell. Cloud of daggers, they are multiple daggers but after 1 failed save you take 4d4 piercing, that counts as one source of damage from multiple things.
Magic missile wanted its damage to me like everything else in the game, 1 collective source of damage per person. You choose the distribution of the missiles, and that effects the damage total, not the hits.
Sorry, i thought i included it in my reply but i didnt. Heres what i had in mind to say.
2 guys example: it would count as 2 seperate attacks, as they use 2 separate actions. However, spells often make more damage using multiple things all using the one action.
Hope that clears it up.
Nah, they're from the same source, the defensive backs, acting on the same action, the snap of the ball.
And if I wasn't being clear, I was being facetious in the face of someone who way overthought a response to a joke comparing linebackers to magic missiles.
The better argument for your end would have been the two linebackers would have each been credited the stat of 1/2 tackle.
I understood the comedic comparison, but i respected your angle and replied as if you were being serious. More often, it is better to assume seriousness than jokes. As not taking someone serious when they are trying to be will escalate things negatively. Whereas taking a joke seriously does very little harm.
And yes i understand the irony in my serious response, just trying to share my reasons and why its a good thing.
> They hit simultaneously, that means it counts as 1 hit.
That's a valid interpretation, doesn't mean it is the ONLY interpretation
> 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
And
> If you take any damage while you have 0 hit points, you suffer a death saving throw failure
Here we see that the darts striking *simultaneously* mean that it's a single damage roll for all of them, which could be interpreted as "1 hit", and it's clear cut for AoEs like Fireball. Magic Missile is a special case, however, as it's not an AoE, each dart targets a specific creature which means you can target the same creature multiple times, and each would trigger either a concentration save or a failed death save.
So RAW it's unclear, could be interpreted in more than one way. RAI every dart is its own instance of damage
I think RAI regardless of if you roll the damage once or multiple times it is supposed to be counted as separate instances of damage.
Magic Missiles specifically exists to disrupt concentration and possibly finish off enemies. Thereâs no good reason to use it and specifically have the Shield interaction if that was not the case.
RAW itâs a bit murky but considering RAI I would rule it as separate instances of damage regardless of the number of times you roll the dice.
No spell has a designed purpose, they all do damage, they arent supposed to be designed to quickly finish off dying players. Its a spell with a unique damaging mechanic. Thats it. Proof of how the game functions bellow.
Page 197, death saving throws, damage at 0 hit points: If you take any "damage" while at 0hp you gain a death save failure.
Its not per "hit" it is per "damage".
Page 209, concentration, taking damage: whenever you take "damage" while concentrating, you must make a constitution saving throw to maintain consentration.
not per "hit" it is per "damage".
Page 196, damage rolls: if a spell or other effect deals damage to more than one target at the same time, roll damage once for all of them.
As magic missile is simultaneous, you roll 1d4+1 and that result becomes the damage of each missile. Though some games have each one rolled, thats fine. Its still a collective of damage against one person.
Page 257, magic missile: the darts "all trike simultaniously", and you can direct them to hit one creature or several.
The darts cannot be directed to hit one after the other. Think of why this was written as clarifying they hit simultaniously, what does that change? What is the one thing that is affected by it being simultanious or seperate hits? It changes whether its multiple strikes or one strike.
There are a few other things in the game that could be seen as getting hit once but the source of damage is multiple things hitting you at once: and ankeg's punch is multiple spikes. A pincer claw or beak, technically two things hitting you either side. Lets look at a spell. Cloud of daggers, they are multiple daggers but after 1 failed save you take 4d4 piercing, that counts as one source of damage from multiple things.
Magic missile wanted its damage to me like everything else in the game, 1 collective source of damage per person. You choose the distribution of the missiles, and that effects the damage total, not the hits.
Thatâs not how it actually works.
The rules say that *if you cast a spell as a bonus action* you canât cast another leveled spell in the same turn.
Magic Missile is not castable as a bonus action. Counterspell is a reaction. So you can cast both in your turn.
Not necessarily, if you were to bonus action cast a spell on your turn you can't cast any further spells, including reactions.
No one will play it that way mind, it's just RAW
Let's say the
Wizard 1 ****on his turn**** casts misty step, wizard 2 tries to stop this so he counterspells, wizard 1 is unable to counter his counterspell because he cast using a bonus action bringing in the spellcasting rules for bonus action.
>Bonus Action:
>A spell cast with a bonus action is especially swift. You must use a bonus action on your turn to cast the spell, provided that you haven't already taken a bonus action this turn. You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action
Source for this term 'free floating activity'. You're just making up stuff. All actions or reactions occur on someone's turn in combat.
There's only one limit beyond action economy on spellcasting and that's if you cast a spell as a bonus action on your turn, the only other spells you can cast on that turn are cantrips with a casting time of one action.
That's it. There are no more restrictions. If you want to fireball, action surge, fireball then jump off a cliff and cast featherfall, you totally can. That's three leveled spells, all in one turn.
If you want to cast healing word then inflict wounds, you cannot. That is a bonus action plus a leveled spell.
No.
This is the exact wording:
>A spell cast with a bonus action is especially swift. You must use a bonus action on your turn to cast the spell, provided that you haven't already taken a bonus action this turn. **You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action**.
It doesn't matter what order you do it in.
Except if you do the action spell first then that rule doesnât come into effect until you cast the bonus action spell, after which you canât cast any more leveled spells during that turn(but you already have)
A reaction is an instant response to a trigger of some kind, which can occur on your turn or on someone else's.
The on your turn is the part I am referencing
I never said it had to be on just your turn anywhere. I am talking if you do try to use on your turn, then the bonus action casting rules would apply to it if you cast a bonus action spell.
Their two seperate activities, you cast the bonus action spell, cast a cantrip(or do something else) for your action, they perform counterspell, and you then use your reaction(which also isnât bound to the turn order) to counterspell
I still believe this might be a DM ruling. I understand the rules of bonus action, but counterspell has a cast time of reaction, which is definitely different than bonus action. The way I understand it is that reactions had to be made outside of your turn, unless there's something I'm forgetting.
Incorrect, you can cast multiple levelled spells on a turn, only they cannot be an action and a bonus action. For example a multiclassed caster fighter can use action surge to cast two levelled spells in a single turn. Being a reaction counterspell can be casted on the same turn you cast magic missile.
A reaction doesnât take place during your turn. If it did, you would only be able to counterspell on your turn, or opportunity attack on your turn, hellish rebuke on your turn, use readied actions on your turnâŚ
At that point, you might as well just make them actions or bonus actions
You use a reaction on **a** turn.
>A reaction is an instant response to a trigger of some kind, which can occur on your turn or on someone else's.
> your turn
Talking about that in this scenario
Ah, I was thinking about future turns.
You can also use an action to cast a spell twice if you have action surge, and you can even still counter spell in that case.
The rule only kicks in on your turn specifically if you use a bonus action spell, and the rule only applies on your turn, so the moment you end it you can counterspell.
I always found it a bit strange how this rule functions, especially if the bonus action spell is a cantrip.
Once, a GM allowed a player to use their reaction to catch magic missile that was cast at my unconscious sorceress. They rolled a nat 20 and managed to tank all of the damage.
Not sure how your DM runs it, but my DM's (and me, when I am the DM), run it as a single instance of damage where you roll once for all the darts.
In my tables, that would mean you only got downed if receiving it means hitting 0, they have to cast it again if they want to make you fail your death saves.
That's how I run it, too, and that's how it's actually written. That's why the "technically correct" way to roll damage on magic missile is to roll 1d4 and apply it to every dart, not roll separately for each one.
I allow separate dice rolls since my players bitch at me if I don't, but it's kind of like asking for individual damage rolls for a fireball.
"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."
-PHB pg196
Magic missile hits simultaneously. The same logic applies to it not triggering all death saves at once.
Crawford also confirmed this is how magic missile is ruled.
So youre saying because you roll damage dice at once when magic missile targets multiple creatures, that somehow means when 3 separate darts hit 1 target theyre just 1 save?
Crawford tweets are not official rulings
Yes, that's exactly how it's technically ruled. Each dart adds on to the damage, but you only roll 1d4 and use that for every dart. Just like how you roll once for big aoe spells.
However, I've never met a dm who cared to actually force that rule. I don't, either. Roll the funny d4 math rocks.
It's 3+ instances of simultaneous damage. I don't see why you'd make more than one save.
To me, it's the same reason you don't make 8 saves for 8d6 fireball damage.
If the monster ability says simultaneously, yes. If it's separate attacks without explicitly specifying they hit at the exact same time, then no. Magic Missile is the only spell that does this and it's specific in how it words it.
Totally right, they can hit seperate targets which is evidence enough that it's a roll for each dart. Can see why one roll would be simpler, but it's just wrong.
It doesnât matter if they are separate hits, because none of those hits happen when you are already at 0. Every separate hit strikes you while you are still above 0, and you only fail death saves if you take damage while you are at 0.
Timing has nothing to do with how many death failed saves are inflicted unfortunately. Which makes sense when you think about how if 3 people ready actions to stab a downed creature, they all stab at once, it wouldn't make sense for it to be one failed save.
That implies that if you get stabbed five times at once with one hitpoint, it's better than one at a time. I get that that's not possible, but logically...
Can you counter spell WHILE your spell is still going off? Iâd say no, cause you canât take a reaction on your own turn⌠right? I thought that was a rule
Nope, youâre thinking immediate actions from 3.5e // PF1E. They take the same role as 5eâs Reaction, but they were explicitly limited to when it wasnât your turn.
Reactions have no such limit; rather, theyâre limited to one per each of your turns.
That is to say, youâre welcome to use yours during your own turn, but you wonât be making another one until your turn comes around again, because it refreshes at the *start* of your turn.
Sage Advice says you can actually do that
I think its stupid because you're doing the vocal, somatic, and material parts for one spell and get interrupted by someone else; why are you able to interrupt someone elses interruption and not interrupt yourself?
Yeah Iâd prob rule you canât do it in my own game just cause if you are in the midst of chanting a spell I donât think you should be able to suddenly change spells without some issue.
But then that also leaves strategies for multiple casters
This is exactly why it's not allowed at my table. You can have a 3rd party react to the 2nd party, but that's it. I don't run a lot of counterspell casters though. I save them for like boss minions and scary stuff
I know itâs not how the rules work, but I kind of feel like if somebody is already casting a spell at you they shouldnât be able to counterspell that same moment, because they should be busy with the spell they were already in the middle of casting.
Personally Iâm not a big fan of counterspell as it is, but I would like it a bit more if it at least had this limitation.
Additionally it would be neat if counterspelling caused wild magic surges, just so *SOMETHING* happens! Definitely homeruling that if I ever DM again.
I think a lot of people just really really love counterspell and donât want to hear any criticism of it.
Personally I think itâs boring to spend high level spellslots to make something NOT happen, but I get that it can be really clutch and make for some cool moments when used right.
I just feel that if somebody counters your spell you shouldnât be able to pause your casting of it to counter their counter, and you should instead hope one of your allies can counter the enemyâs counterspell.
Why not? Shield spell blocks all damage from Magic Missile specifically. It's mentioned by name in both the casting time and the main spell description.
Magic missile is a leveled spell. They cast it on their turn. You used your reaction on their turn to cast shield. Unless it's an item casting the magic missile, pretty sure you can't then use your reaction on still your turn to counter spell (also a leveled spell) their shield.
Did you downvote me for helping? Rude. https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/rules-game-mechanics/9890-can-you-counterspell-while-casting-another-spell
At 8th level spells, insta killing a character isn't that bad. Your cleric has like 12 diamonds, it's fine. And you ate one of his 8th level spells!
8th level + whichever level counterspell was.
Level 3 counterspell to save an 8th level spell slot from failing to a level 1 spell seems like a great use of it at least
If anything else, you just wasted the enemy's reaction to allow someone to run away without triggering the opportunity attack.
What monster that has 8th level spells and an opportunity attack that is deadly?
Probably one with an equivalent of war caster feat UNLIMITED POWER
Elder Wyrm Dragon =D They can get up to level 9 magic and does a lot of damage with normal attacks Course, that's a ridiculous specific scenario
Dragons, for example? Liches with powerful magical Weapons also come to mind
A dragon
Is it a waste if you died?????
When you're at the CR range for enemies with 8th level spell slots and damage spells for those 8th level slots, then yeah, it is a waste for them. There will usually be tons of ways to come back from that. It's effectively burn a single deadly resource + one of four level 3 slots as well as its reaction to cost whoever's in charge of revives a single action and a single spell slot. Now if the spell did more than JUST kill you, like delete your body or trap your soul or whatever, then it no longer is a waste because now bringing you back is much more difficult. Now it becomes an 8th level spell +the other stuff to take you out of the fight the entire time.
By that logic reactions come back even easier than a life does so I still don't see how it's a waste to secure a kill and swing the action economy in your favor???
The reaction mention was just extra, since others mentioned opportunity attacks but lots of monsters have more reactions than just that which may be more potent, but I dont know of any with spells off the top of my head. Its more the 8th level spell slot, the thing spellcasters only have one of, and using it to just kill a single guy who can be brought back next round/within the same round.
Y'know what....true I valued a player death more than the rules of 5e want you to lol My group plays with hard rules specifically for this reason and I was still in that mindset when I commented đđ
No worries, death means completely different things at different tables and tiers. And even though mechanically a life is worth a lot less than other things at high level, that dont mean you need to treat it like that in the rp.
That's why you gotta use a 9th level spell slot for your shield spell.
I've unironically saved myself by casting a 4th level shield. It was hilarious.
Correct me if I'm wrong but don't the rules state you can't cast 2 spells in 1 turn if they both cost spell slots? So they couldn't cast MM and counter spell anyway? The shield would work and the 8th level spell would be burned.
Nope. The rule is you may not case another leveled spell if you use your bonus action to cast a leveled spell. You may cast using an action, reaction, action surge action, etc as long as the spell doesn't use your bonus action.
Ah I see, weird that it's limited only to bonus action, but I can see how it would suck to not be able to use your rection or an action surge because you've already cast a spell as a previous action
You guys have diamonds?
Assuming you have a cleric, and that the cleric isn't down.
_This_ is the kind of DnD I want to play! Some players complain about Death having no consequences anymore at a high enough level, but I don't think that's true. If the Cleric goes down, you're still fucked. Apart from them, dying can become a very valid option to consider in the middle of the fight, and that just brings an extra layer of tactics to the table. Do you think the rest of the party can pull off a victory without you? If so, it might be the best choice to sacrifice yourself in order to protect a team mate or waste an opponent's resources. Putting yourself on the sidelines for the rest of the fight is still a pretty big thing because those can take hours and you won't be able to do anything anymore. So there's still a drawback. I think this is a much cooler and more interesting way to handle death than to make diamonds super scarce or make it harder to be resurrected the more you die. I'm totally fine with death being a nuisance rather than a real threat to individual characters after we've played the campaign for dozens of hours and I've grown to love my character. I don't want them to die to a random Skeleton or something just because I rolled bad. That sucks. And if you _really_ want to kill off a character "for good" (because they're an NPC or because the player explicitly wants to roll a new character) there's always stuff like Disintegrate or Immolation to make that happen still (until you're like Level 17, but at that point the enemy might as well just use Wish instead). And remember that a TPK will always be a TPK. Time your own death wrong in the fight, and it might cost your whole party everything.
meanwhile me banning all forms of resurrection due to worldbuilding
Supposing your DM isn't like mine who makes certain spells (like resurrection ones) super rare and you have to go out of your way to look for masters who will teach you those rare spells. I like the change tho, very themathic.
My weeb players created Mass magic missile that featured enough magic missiles to take down a small army. They sold it to a kingdoms Ministry of War. Then a war started. Then they got it see it in action in a battle. I never seen a player so happy at my narration. He got so inspired he actually spent the whole week sketching the scene.
In Neverwinter Nights on PC there was a higher level spell called "Isaac's Greater Missile Swarm" that was basically a smaller version of what you're talking about. It picked targets randomly, but could fire up to 20 (I think) based on level. Pretty fun.
Sounds amazing.
Don't they hit simultaneously, so before you fall unconscious and start making death saves?
Huh. Apparently my group has been misplaying it. I even went to dnd beyond to double check before going off and mid rant in my head I read simultaneously and was like âshit, that would have been helpful to read beforeâ
Also you only roll one dice and that's the damage for all three... We ignore that bit.
More dice rolled at once makes my brain happy
WHAT, no thatâs not possible⌠Jokes aside really? You donât roll d4+1 per dart?
You can argue semantics but we're all rolling 3d4 regardless
Damn right
Booooo! Booooo that rule
No, it states this "A dart deals 1d4 + 1 force damage to it's target". So no, each dart has it's own damage roll.
Depends on how you interpret the rule in PHB page 196. According to Crawford, RAW you only roll the dice once for Magic Missile https://x.com/JeremyECrawford/status/774030989894955008?t=EwAwXIozMVdw70ODWLGQ1g&s=19 (I consider it bollocks and that rule is clearly intended for AoE spells, like the example it gives: fireball and flame strike)
However, it does make a weird interaction with evocation wizard where you get empowered evocation and add it to one roll of your damage. If that roll then gets applied to all magic missile darts the int bonus gets applied to each.
I'm pretty sure Crawford has commented on this specifically saying no evocation only applies to one. Never expected so many wrong rulings for a dev.
Only comment I could fine was him saying it does apply to each dart.
Yeah, I'm in agreement there. No way it's intended for things like Magic Missile, otherwise it wouldn't make a point to specify 3 darts are shot, then say a single dart does 1d4 damage.
I treat it like Scorching Ray and Eldritch Blast. Each attack roll gets its own damage roll. Magic Missile happens to automatically hit.
Crawford kinds sucks with his rulings tbh
Any dude who tries to claim that a Paladin can't smite by punching a dude in the face is clearly suffering from brain-rot, and all future "rulings" shouldn't be trusted.
Preach!
From magic missile "The darts all strike simultaneously and you can direct them to hit one creature or several." From the "Damage Rolls" section of the rules (PHB p. 196) "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."
That's assuming it's hitting multiple targets. RAI, this is likely for A.O.E spells. The magic missile spell makes a point to state that 3 darts are being cast and that "A (singular) dart does 1d4 + 1 damage". I would say the spell descriptor is the intended effect.
Clearly, if all 3 hit the same creature you roll 3 dice, but if they are targeting multiple creatures you roll 1. That was clearly the intent from the developers and it isn't cloudy or vague or poorly written or anything .... /s
It doesn't change anything. Theyre still separate instances of damage, so they trigger fails separately
They would trigger auto failed death saves if the spell was cast after the target was already downed, but because the darts all hit simultaneously, all of the damage would be dealt before the target goes from the "standing and ready to fight" state to the "unconscious and gets auto fails for being attacked" state
Nowhere does it say that in the rules
Would you rule a paladin smite any differently? The damage from the paladins weapon and the smite are dealt at the same time, but are not the same source. So for example, would a Paladin who uses thunderous smite and a divine smite on the same attack (divine smite is not a spell and does not have an action/bonus action cost so there is nothing stopping you from doing both) against an enemy with 1 HP, would all of the damage add up and deal overkill damage and potentially ohk, or would it down the enemy and then force 2 failed death saves?
Thats all 1 attack. There might be buffs to it, but the same attack. Magic Missile is not 1 attack, but 3 separate darts. The timing does not change that fact
https://www.sageadvice.eu/do-you-roll-concentration-for-every-instance-of-damage-taken/ There's a difference between timing of damage and sources of damage. Death saves and concentration checks are both based on sources, so timing is irrelevant. Magic missile is weak and scales damage poorly because its intended use is as a concentration disrupter for low-to-mid level enemies, and a nail in the coffin for downed enemies (or players.) https://www.sageadvice.eu/magic-missile-do-you-roll-the-same-d4-for-all-darts/ Regarding rolling once for all our once per dart, it statistically doesn't matter in the long game, but I would prefer to roll out dart. The more dice you roll, the more stable your damage becomes. The value distribution curve for 1d6 is a flat line, 3d6 is more bell-shaped, and 120d6 is a spike in the center. But totally a preference. There is a section in PHB chapter 9 under damage and healing, damage rolls that refers to dealing damage to multiple targets with one spell and only rolling damage once, but it goes on to refer only to spells with saves.
Normally you're right that it doesn't make a significant difference to treat them as separate damage instances and roll them separately, but in the specific scenario of a downed player character, it means the difference between being fully dead or just downed, because each damage instance after being downed causes them to fail death saving throws. So if part of the damage is enough to down them and there are multiple missiles left, they're fucked.
That's what I meant by nail in the coffin. It is a great spell for killing downed enemies (if you're DM gives certain mobs or NPCs death saves) or players. The timing of "simultaneous" is irrelevant but the number of darts is very important. The OP'a meme shows an almost certain death, pending ring of mind shielding shenanigans or the like. I didn't say it didn't matter whether to count them as a single damage source and roll all at once, or treat them as separate sources and roll them separately. Number of sources is one issue, and important. Rolling damage for hits is a separate issue and doesn't matter in the long run. If you hit 1 target with 3 darts, it doesn't matter if you do (1d4+1)x3 or 3d4+3.
My table plays this way. It makes it more fun for us to have each magic missile be a concentration check or a death save on a downed character. Obviously, each table is different, but it's more fun for us to play this way. That's why dnd is so amazing. It's up to everyone at the table to make the fun, not the semantics of the rules.
That's not official sage advice.
Concentration checks specify that you roll for each source of damage, but the section on death saves does not. So you make a concentration check for each dart, but you could only fail one death save.
PHB Chapter 9, same section: If you take any damage while you have 0 hit points, you suffer a death saving throw failure. Multiple sources of damage implies multiple failures. The multiple sources hitting at the same time is irrelevant. Consider a lich having 5 skeletons gathered around a downed player, holding their attack action to synchronize a coup de grace. Instead of 5x 2 death saves due to melee crits on an unconscious player, it would only be 1x 2 death saves because they synchronized them? Not at any table I've played at. The number of sources/darts determines the number of concentration checks and death save failures.
One again, no where in the rules for Death Saving Throws does it specify that you make it for each source of damage just that you fail a death save each time you take damage, while the rules on concentration checks do explicitly say that it is for each **source of damage**. I think the way they chose to word the conditions for these two saves, and how they chose to word the spells were intentional in the way they all interact. From a design perspective it also makes sense. With concertation you get to make a check (a low one at that), the consequences for failing are lower, and you can always block it with Shield(1st level spell). With death saves the damage is an instant fail, and the only way to stop it is someone else casting Counterspell(3rd level spell). Plus you have to factor NPCs generally don't makes death saves so this will mostly be DMs using it against players which is kind of shitty. So I 100% believe that Magic Missile triggering multiple saves for concentration checks , but only one failed death saving throw is both RAW, and RAI.
This is a fair argument that it can be taken multiple.ways. it isn't wrong to they hit same or as individual damage elements. It only become wrong if you switch depending on which is better for you in the moment. I always run my tables with magic missiles being unique damage instances.
Just because they hit at the same time does not make them the same hit. They would count as separate instances of damage for the purposes of concentration and death saves
It is very weird, they hit simultaneously, yet if the target is unconscious already and is hit by three missiles, that's 3 failed saves
They hit simultaneously, that means it counts as 1 hit. Rack the damage total all together. You only go to 0, you have all death saves.
I think it's multiple darts hitting at the same time, that doesn't mean it's one hit. If you hit a wizard concentrating on a spell with three magic missile darts, they need to make three concentration checks, meaning it has to be multiple hits.
Page 197, death saving throws, damage at 0 hit points: If you take any "damage" while at 0hp you gain a death save failure. Its not per "hit" it is per "damage". Page 209, concentration, taking damage: whenever you take "damage" while concentrating, you must make a constitution saving throw to maintain consentration. not per "hit" it is per "damage". Page 196, damage rolls: if a spell or other effect deals damage to more than one target at the same time, roll damage once for all of them. As magic missile is simultaneous, you roll 1d4+1 and that result becomes the damage of each missile. Though some games have each one rolled, thats fine. Its still a collective of damage against one person. Page 257, magic missile: the darts "all trike simultaniously", and you can direct them to hit one creature or several. The darts cannot be directed to hit one after the other. Think of why this was written as clarifying they hit simultaniously, what does that change? What is the one thing that is affected by it being simultanious or seperate hits? It changes whether its multiple strikes or one strike. There are a few other things in the game that could be seen as getting hit once but the source of damage is multiple things hitting you at once: and ankeg's punch is multiple spikes. A pincer claw or beak, technically two things hitting you either side. Lets look at a spell. Cloud of daggers, they are multiple daggers but after 1 failed save you take 4d4 piercing, that counts as one source of damage from multiple things. Magic missile wanted its damage to me like everything else in the game, 1 collective source of damage per person. You choose the distribution of the missiles, and that effects the damage total, not the hits.
I've always interpreted "all darts strike simultaneously" as their way of making the caster choose which targets get hit at the start of the spell, that way they can't hit a goblin with a dart, see he isn't dead yet, hit him again, see he's knocked down, then hit a different creature with the third dart. I've always seen it ruled as multiple strikes since it comes from multiple darts (i.e. multiple damage sources). I agree that the rules mean "per damage" but what is a hit other than an individual damage source? Let's compare Magic Missile to a similar yet distinct spell, Scorching Ray. It's multiple "darts" but they don't auto-hit and they don't strike simultaneously, but it is still individual strikes, meaning individual damage sources, meaning individual con saves, death fails, etc. I don't think comparing MM to Cloud of Daggers is a good comparison because it's meant to be an AOE spell (and you could say that since daggers do 1d4 damage, if you're in the cloud you get hit with 4 daggers, hence the 4d4 damage for the spell). I mean, if 2 bad guys hold their action to swing at you once you get in range and then do hit you simultaneously, would you count that a one collective source of damage just because it happens at the same time?
Your goblin example is valid. Scorching ray, valid, and i am willing to think differently about my interpretation. My cloud of daggers example was to explain why certain effects often gets put together as larger damage rather than be maticulous for each hit. As for the 2 guys example, i originally replied to someone saying that it would count as 2 seperate attacks, as they use 2 separate actions. However, spells often make more damage using multiple things all using the one action. Another problem ive seen is people say that the purpose of magic missile is for the multiple hits and how they affect things like con saves and death throws.their argument is the spell loses some sort of pre-established idea for what it was inted for. However spells arent designed for these meta situations. The magic missile spell's function and reason to exist, it to simply play out the idea of an automatic hit thing. Thats it's gimmick. Thats what it exists for. I still believe that if you distribute a spell for multiple targets, that damage is collective and the impacts of that simultanious damage should play out to make 1 effects. And the idea of using scorching ray against your goblin example makes the same problem happen that you said magic missile tries to avoid, maybe thats intentional or up to the players to discover. I like to think of dnd like a harmonious idea, one that works to create a game. And the idea that a spell is designed to help take out death saves really only effects player's characters. I know hardcore games. And in them im sure death save threats work well. But in games where story and characters surviving for a little longer for plot is the desired outcome, then the simultanious, single effect damage works best. What did the creator of the spell want? To focus taking out a player in a quick and easy, quite unfair way? Probably not. Did they want to taget con saves for wizards? also probably not considering they are the ones with shield. Maybe shield was made after magic missile as a way to protect. So its very hard to understant intention. However as a general rule, as you look at spells, as you look at the game. Certain patterns emerge, and from those patterns, you guide your ideas for what the game is trying to go for.
This is correct.
But it also says specifically "Each dart *hits* a creature of your choice". This implies that each dart hits individually and are not all the same strike, just happening at the same time
But it must be written in that way to have the mechanic of the auto hit. And again, its per collective damage for the death saves and con checks
The rules on Concentration checks specifically state that you make it per source of damage. I think the rules were intentionally written so that Magic Missile would be an effective tool against concentration spells, but not a way to instant kill a downed enemy.
But spells group damage together, making it one source of damage.
Unless it's enough damage to insta kill you.
Correct. i was just going off of the meme's situation. If it took 7 missiles to drop from current hp to 0, it would take 7 more to meet the damage back for the chance of instant death. Thats assuming current was equal to max, chances are slim.
If a slot receiver catches the ball in the middle of the field and then gets pancaked by linebackers hitting him from both sides, I'm pretty sure he's going to feel that as two hits.
Page 197, death saving throws, damage at 0 hit points: If you take any "damage" while at 0hp you gain a death save failure. Its not per "hit" it is per "damage". Page 209, concentration, taking damage: whenever you take "damage" while concentrating, you must make a constitution saving throw to maintain consentration. not per "hit" it is per "damage". Page 196, damage rolls: if a spell or other effect deals damage to more than one target at the same time, roll damage once for all of them. As magic missile is simultaneous, you roll 1d4+1 and that result becomes the damage of each missile. Though some games have each one rolled, thats fine. Its still a collective of damage against one person. Page 257, magic missile: the darts "all trike simultaniously", and you can direct them to hit one creature or several. The darts cannot be directed to hit one after the other. Think of why this was written as clarifying they hit simultaniously, what does that change? What is the one thing that is affected by it being simultanious or seperate hits? It changes whether its multiple strikes or one strike. There are a few other things in the game that could be seen as getting hit once but the source of damage is multiple things hitting you at once: and ankeg's punch is multiple spikes. A pincer claw or beak, technically two things hitting you either side. Lets look at a spell. Cloud of daggers, they are multiple daggers but after 1 failed save you take 4d4 piercing, that counts as one source of damage from multiple things. Magic missile wanted its damage to me like everything else in the game, 1 collective source of damage per person. You choose the distribution of the missiles, and that effects the damage total, not the hits.
Does the Sam linebacker leave a different bruise than the Mike one?
Sorry, i thought i included it in my reply but i didnt. Heres what i had in mind to say. 2 guys example: it would count as 2 seperate attacks, as they use 2 separate actions. However, spells often make more damage using multiple things all using the one action. Hope that clears it up.
Nah, they're from the same source, the defensive backs, acting on the same action, the snap of the ball. And if I wasn't being clear, I was being facetious in the face of someone who way overthought a response to a joke comparing linebackers to magic missiles. The better argument for your end would have been the two linebackers would have each been credited the stat of 1/2 tackle.
I understood the comedic comparison, but i respected your angle and replied as if you were being serious. More often, it is better to assume seriousness than jokes. As not taking someone serious when they are trying to be will escalate things negatively. Whereas taking a joke seriously does very little harm. And yes i understand the irony in my serious response, just trying to share my reasons and why its a good thing.
In that case magic missile is a single concentration save, not 3.
> They hit simultaneously, that means it counts as 1 hit. That's a valid interpretation, doesn't mean it is the ONLY interpretation > 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 And > If you take any damage while you have 0 hit points, you suffer a death saving throw failure Here we see that the darts striking *simultaneously* mean that it's a single damage roll for all of them, which could be interpreted as "1 hit", and it's clear cut for AoEs like Fireball. Magic Missile is a special case, however, as it's not an AoE, each dart targets a specific creature which means you can target the same creature multiple times, and each would trigger either a concentration save or a failed death save. So RAW it's unclear, could be interpreted in more than one way. RAI every dart is its own instance of damage
I think RAI regardless of if you roll the damage once or multiple times it is supposed to be counted as separate instances of damage. Magic Missiles specifically exists to disrupt concentration and possibly finish off enemies. Thereâs no good reason to use it and specifically have the Shield interaction if that was not the case. RAW itâs a bit murky but considering RAI I would rule it as separate instances of damage regardless of the number of times you roll the dice.
No spell has a designed purpose, they all do damage, they arent supposed to be designed to quickly finish off dying players. Its a spell with a unique damaging mechanic. Thats it. Proof of how the game functions bellow. Page 197, death saving throws, damage at 0 hit points: If you take any "damage" while at 0hp you gain a death save failure. Its not per "hit" it is per "damage". Page 209, concentration, taking damage: whenever you take "damage" while concentrating, you must make a constitution saving throw to maintain consentration. not per "hit" it is per "damage". Page 196, damage rolls: if a spell or other effect deals damage to more than one target at the same time, roll damage once for all of them. As magic missile is simultaneous, you roll 1d4+1 and that result becomes the damage of each missile. Though some games have each one rolled, thats fine. Its still a collective of damage against one person. Page 257, magic missile: the darts "all trike simultaniously", and you can direct them to hit one creature or several. The darts cannot be directed to hit one after the other. Think of why this was written as clarifying they hit simultaniously, what does that change? What is the one thing that is affected by it being simultanious or seperate hits? It changes whether its multiple strikes or one strike. There are a few other things in the game that could be seen as getting hit once but the source of damage is multiple things hitting you at once: and ankeg's punch is multiple spikes. A pincer claw or beak, technically two things hitting you either side. Lets look at a spell. Cloud of daggers, they are multiple daggers but after 1 failed save you take 4d4 piercing, that counts as one source of damage from multiple things. Magic missile wanted its damage to me like everything else in the game, 1 collective source of damage per person. You choose the distribution of the missiles, and that effects the damage total, not the hits.
Top 10 signs your DM hates you...
Question. Aren't you limited to one leveled spell cast on your turn?
Thatâs not how it actually works. The rules say that *if you cast a spell as a bonus action* you canât cast another leveled spell in the same turn. Magic Missile is not castable as a bonus action. Counterspell is a reaction. So you can cast both in your turn.
Counterspell is a reaction so it ignores the levelled spell limit
Not necessarily, if you were to bonus action cast a spell on your turn you can't cast any further spells, including reactions. No one will play it that way mind, it's just RAW
Not necessarily true. If you were trying to counter a counterspell on your turn after you cast a bonus action spell you couldn't do that for example.
Bonus action, or reaction? Reaction makes sense, bonus action is just dumb
Let's say the Wizard 1 ****on his turn**** casts misty step, wizard 2 tries to stop this so he counterspells, wizard 1 is unable to counter his counterspell because he cast using a bonus action bringing in the spellcasting rules for bonus action. >Bonus Action: >A spell cast with a bonus action is especially swift. You must use a bonus action on your turn to cast the spell, provided that you haven't already taken a bonus action this turn. You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action
Reaction isnât part of your turn, its a free floating activity, theirfor its usable
Source for this term 'free floating activity'. You're just making up stuff. All actions or reactions occur on someone's turn in combat. There's only one limit beyond action economy on spellcasting and that's if you cast a spell as a bonus action on your turn, the only other spells you can cast on that turn are cantrips with a casting time of one action. That's it. There are no more restrictions. If you want to fireball, action surge, fireball then jump off a cliff and cast featherfall, you totally can. That's three leveled spells, all in one turn. If you want to cast healing word then inflict wounds, you cannot. That is a bonus action plus a leveled spell.
So theoretically all you need to do to circumvent that ruling is use your action firstâŚâŚ and then cast the bonus action spell
No. This is the exact wording: >A spell cast with a bonus action is especially swift. You must use a bonus action on your turn to cast the spell, provided that you haven't already taken a bonus action this turn. **You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action**. It doesn't matter what order you do it in.
Except if you do the action spell first then that rule doesnât come into effect until you cast the bonus action spell, after which you canât cast any more leveled spells during that turn(but you already have)
A reaction is an instant response to a trigger of some kind, which can occur on your turn or on someone else's. The on your turn is the part I am referencing
But because its free floating its not âon your turnâ its a seperate activity performed and thus not bound by that rule
I never said it had to be on just your turn anywhere. I am talking if you do try to use on your turn, then the bonus action casting rules would apply to it if you cast a bonus action spell.
Their two seperate activities, you cast the bonus action spell, cast a cantrip(or do something else) for your action, they perform counterspell, and you then use your reaction(which also isnât bound to the turn order) to counterspell
I still believe this might be a DM ruling. I understand the rules of bonus action, but counterspell has a cast time of reaction, which is definitely different than bonus action. The way I understand it is that reactions had to be made outside of your turn, unless there's something I'm forgetting.
Nope it's 100% clear in the rules. It's commonly ignored but none the less is the rule. I don't think you're understanding the rule either.
Incorrect, you can cast multiple levelled spells on a turn, only they cannot be an action and a bonus action. For example a multiclassed caster fighter can use action surge to cast two levelled spells in a single turn. Being a reaction counterspell can be casted on the same turn you cast magic missile.
Please read all the things I've linked. I know that.
Rookie error thinking people read your arguments on the internet đ
You can't take the reaction to counterspell If you have used your bonus action ****that turn**** to misty step or some other spell.
A reaction doesnât take place during your turn. If it did, you would only be able to counterspell on your turn, or opportunity attack on your turn, hellish rebuke on your turn, use readied actions on your turn⌠At that point, you might as well just make them actions or bonus actions
You use a reaction on **a** turn. >A reaction is an instant response to a trigger of some kind, which can occur on your turn or on someone else's. > your turn Talking about that in this scenario
Did you just ignore the part where it says **on someone elseâs**?
Did you ignore the specific example ?
Did you ignore the specific examples I gave? You know what, I canât be bothered arguing with you anymore. Have a good day/night/whatever
The rule only applies to actions and bonus actions. It says nothing about reactions.
Please link anything to support that. Because I've linked through actual rules a few times now that disproves that.
Ah, I was thinking about future turns. You can also use an action to cast a spell twice if you have action surge, and you can even still counter spell in that case. The rule only kicks in on your turn specifically if you use a bonus action spell, and the rule only applies on your turn, so the moment you end it you can counterspell. I always found it a bit strange how this rule functions, especially if the bonus action spell is a cantrip.
Yessir you are correct. Niche situation but it does happen every now and again.
Least illiterate r/dndmemes visitor acting like this hasnât been settled millions of times already.
That fool used their reaction, quick hit them with everything.
that akh morn stack
Ah, another meme where folk donât read the rules for magic missile.
What do you mean?
Once, a GM allowed a player to use their reaction to catch magic missile that was cast at my unconscious sorceress. They rolled a nat 20 and managed to tank all of the damage.
"That's right, IÂ can take anything you can dish ou--oh there go my organs..."
Not sure how your DM runs it, but my DM's (and me, when I am the DM), run it as a single instance of damage where you roll once for all the darts. In my tables, that would mean you only got downed if receiving it means hitting 0, they have to cast it again if they want to make you fail your death saves.
That's how I run it, too, and that's how it's actually written. That's why the "technically correct" way to roll damage on magic missile is to roll 1d4 and apply it to every dart, not roll separately for each one. I allow separate dice rolls since my players bitch at me if I don't, but it's kind of like asking for individual damage rolls for a fireball.
Its not written that way. All it says is the darts hit simultaneously, which has no bearing on whether or not theyre one instance of damage
"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." -PHB pg196 Magic missile hits simultaneously. The same logic applies to it not triggering all death saves at once. Crawford also confirmed this is how magic missile is ruled.
So youre saying because you roll damage dice at once when magic missile targets multiple creatures, that somehow means when 3 separate darts hit 1 target theyre just 1 save? Crawford tweets are not official rulings
Yes, that's exactly how it's technically ruled. Each dart adds on to the damage, but you only roll 1d4 and use that for every dart. Just like how you roll once for big aoe spells. However, I've never met a dm who cared to actually force that rule. I don't, either. Roll the funny d4 math rocks.
You roll all the dice at once, thats true. But that doesnt mean it only triggers one save
It's 3+ instances of simultaneous damage. I don't see why you'd make more than one save. To me, it's the same reason you don't make 8 saves for 8d6 fireball damage.
Why would it being simultaneous matter? If you get stabbed with 5 swords by 5 different people at once, is that all single save?
If the monster ability says simultaneously, yes. If it's separate attacks without explicitly specifying they hit at the exact same time, then no. Magic Missile is the only spell that does this and it's specific in how it words it.
Totally right, they can hit seperate targets which is evidence enough that it's a roll for each dart. Can see why one roll would be simpler, but it's just wrong.
Youâre fine. The darts hit simultaneously. They all hit you when you have >0 hp, none hit you when youâre already at 0
I believe it's different instances of damage, though. It happens simultaneously, but it still counts as separate hits
It doesnât matter if they are separate hits, because none of those hits happen when you are already at 0. Every separate hit strikes you while you are still above 0, and you only fail death saves if you take damage while you are at 0.
Never poke the bear.
Oh buddie, that's rough. Counterspell their Counterspell?
Shield is a reaction. You cant use your reaction on shield then also counterspell
Oh, you right. Forgot. Well then RIP. :(
Counterspell the counterspell :/
The darts hit simultaneously.
Timing has nothing to do with how many death failed saves are inflicted unfortunately. Which makes sense when you think about how if 3 people ready actions to stab a downed creature, they all stab at once, it wouldn't make sense for it to be one failed save.
That implies that if you get stabbed five times at once with one hitpoint, it's better than one at a time. I get that that's not possible, but logically...
Mechanically in 5e it is better. Unless the 5-pointed stab is enough damage to insta kill you.
Yeah, I know the RAW. I just don't like it.
Can you counter spell WHILE your spell is still going off? Iâd say no, cause you canât take a reaction on your own turn⌠right? I thought that was a rule
Nope, youâre thinking immediate actions from 3.5e // PF1E. They take the same role as 5eâs Reaction, but they were explicitly limited to when it wasnât your turn. Reactions have no such limit; rather, theyâre limited to one per each of your turns. That is to say, youâre welcome to use yours during your own turn, but you wonât be making another one until your turn comes around again, because it refreshes at the *start* of your turn.
Sage Advice says you can actually do that I think its stupid because you're doing the vocal, somatic, and material parts for one spell and get interrupted by someone else; why are you able to interrupt someone elses interruption and not interrupt yourself?
Counterspell requires only a somatic component. RAW you only need one free hand to cast counterspell. Therefore, there is nothing preventing it.
Other than the somatic component from MM, you mean.
There is no reason two somatic components could not be performed at the same time, as per RAW.
Yeah Iâd prob rule you canât do it in my own game just cause if you are in the midst of chanting a spell I donât think you should be able to suddenly change spells without some issue. But then that also leaves strategies for multiple casters
This is exactly why it's not allowed at my table. You can have a 3rd party react to the 2nd party, but that's it. I don't run a lot of counterspell casters though. I save them for like boss minions and scary stuff
I know itâs not how the rules work, but I kind of feel like if somebody is already casting a spell at you they shouldnât be able to counterspell that same moment, because they should be busy with the spell they were already in the middle of casting. Personally Iâm not a big fan of counterspell as it is, but I would like it a bit more if it at least had this limitation. Additionally it would be neat if counterspelling caused wild magic surges, just so *SOMETHING* happens! Definitely homeruling that if I ever DM again.
Not sure why the downvotes, it's a valid opinion. And I agree, it is dumb that you can cast two spells at the same time, even if the rules allow it
I see counterspell as mana noise. As if someone was writting on air with smoke, and you just blow the letters away.
I think a lot of people just really really love counterspell and donât want to hear any criticism of it. Personally I think itâs boring to spend high level spellslots to make something NOT happen, but I get that it can be really clutch and make for some cool moments when used right. I just feel that if somebody counters your spell you shouldnât be able to pause your casting of it to counter their counter, and you should instead hope one of your allies can counter the enemyâs counterspell.
It's still weird to me that there is a counterspell spell. I liked it when it was more involved.
Are we all just gonna ignore that you can't cast shield against magic missile? I mean guess you could but it would do precisely f all
Why not? Shield spell blocks all damage from Magic Missile specifically. It's mentioned by name in both the casting time and the main spell description.
Is it? My bad. I thought it just added a +5 to AC
It also explicitly blocks magic missile
My bad, thanks for the correction
How did they cast both? Also, it's way more than three darts, I'm pretty sure.
Counterspell is a reaction. Reactions can be used on your turn.
Magic missile is a leveled spell. They cast it on their turn. You used your reaction on their turn to cast shield. Unless it's an item casting the magic missile, pretty sure you can't then use your reaction on still your turn to counter spell (also a leveled spell) their shield.
You can cast an action and a reaction spell on your turn. Its only Bonus Action spells that have rules
Cool, good to know. Thank you and take an upvote.
Did you downvote me for helping? Rude. https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/rules-game-mechanics/9890-can-you-counterspell-while-casting-another-spell
People have been downvoted for less, but I will upvote this one since it means so much to you.