Choose the initial target, and make a ranged attack against its EAC. If the attack hits, the disk deals 3d6 force damage. The disk then ricochets to hit up to four more creatures of your choice, each no more than 15 feet from the last target. Make a ranged attack against each successive target’s EAC in turn; the disk deals 2d6 force damage to each secondary target struck (this damage is rolled separately for each target). The disk continues to ricochet in this way until it has attempted to strike five creatures, or until there are no more valid targets, or until you voluntarily end the spell. A creature can take damage only once from a single casting of this spell.
This spell came up in our session last week (meant to ask questions earlier but had surgery), and we came to an impass between the players and the GM over whether the disk needs to hit the primary target to ricochet. Or any target to ricochet.
On the one hand, it's described as a ricochet which would imply hitting something. On the flip side, it uses the language "attempted to strike five creatures" which would imply it doesn't have to hit to target another creature within 15ft.
It wasn't a game breaking call either way, just something we couldn't come to concensus on, so is there an answer for this one?
I don’t think it has to hit a target to keep trying.
agreed ...little hard to tell with the first strike ....comes down to a period ..."If the attack hits, the disk deals 3d6 force damage. The disk then ricochets".....change that to "3d6 force damage (and then) The disk then ricochets" and it would go the other way.
I think this is a GM call more than anything. I don't see why it wouldn't keep going.
My thoughts center around the purpose of why you require a "hit" to do damage.
In the RPG world you need a mechanism to determine if an attack deals damage. We call this mechanism a "hit". If an attack against an enemy is a "hit" it means that you are dealt some form of damage. It could mean that you are actually hit. It could mean that you are in the area of an attack and it's close enough to cause damage (like an explosion) or a "force" attack of some type. There are many cases where you may be struck by a weapon and yet take no damage as it's a glancing blow, or is deflected by armor, etc.
In this case, it's not impossible (since this is a magic spell) that while the disk inflicts no damage, it's could use your mass to keep moving from target to target. Perhaps it only dinged glanced off your shoulder and kept moving or you nimbly dodged it and it bounced off the floor or wall or even your weapon.
The text doesn't explicitly state that the spell must hit a target to keep going though it implies it.
it's logic that implies the spell would need to hit (at least the fist time)..... but the spell states "The disk continues to ricochet in this way until it has attempted to strike five creatures"...that and the language I already posted seem to imply otherwise
agreed ...little hard to tell with the first strike ....comes down to a period ..."If the attack hits, the disk deals 3d6 force damage. The disk then ricochets".....change that to "3d6 force damage (and then) The disk then ricochets" and it would go the other way.
Yeah, it's a strangely placed period, and part of the reason we had the discussion. Since the period separates the two statements it means they're separate statements. It doesn't read with flow at all though.