So last night, Sitsi, the Shoanti Wizard was hit with 2 shards of a Force Barrage spell while at 3 HP. The total damage on the spell was 8 damage, 5 from the first shard and 3 from the second. Was Sitsi at dying 1 or dying 2? I thought she would be at dying 1 because the last sentence on the spell description talks about combining damage into one instance of damage, but there was not consensus at the table about that call. In my mind that falls under the “so forth,” but I acknowledge “so forth” isn’t tight rules jargon. It ended up mattering greatly because I rolled a 2 on my dying flat check that round, so if she was at dying 2 instead, she’d be dead. It seems a little harsh to me that one higher level casting of force barrage (where you might be hit by 4+ shards with one casting) is instant death for a character with low HP. Is there somewhere in the rules that clarifies that more, or is it pretty much a table to table ruling? Sitsi is level 4 and ate two Rank 3 vampiric feast spells, the 2nd of which dropped her to 6 hp, so that encounter was really out to kill her.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would run it as once instance of damage and dying 1. Doubt there will be a clear answer on this type of thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd rule single instance if directed to a single target (and as multiple otherwise).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would also run it as one instance of damage and Dying 1. I would do this because all of the damage came from an enemy using Cast a Spell to cause the damage. One spell = one instance of damage IMO. Each bolt is still part of that Cast a Spell by that enemy.
Oh, nice. Another facet of that discussion about instances of damage.
Yup. link to one of the previous discussions about it.
There is some unofficial clarifications about damage boosting that I would also use as a basis for this case too. Being hit multiple times by the same spell shouldn't be interpreted as multiple hits for increasing Dying any more than it does for triggering damage boost effects.
But it is unofficial and all we can do is appeal to balance considerations.
As other people have said. You combine the damage, it is objectively one instance of damage.
Same wording that makes this so as double slice; if it were worded like hunted shot I could see there being a RAW to RAI ambiguity (although as a GM I would rule it as being a single instance for consistency sake).
So last night, Sitsi, the Shoanti Wizard was hit with 2 shards of a Force Barrage spell while at 3 HP. The total damage on the spell was 8 damage, 5 from the first shard and 3 from the second. Was Sitsi at dying 1 or dying 2? I thought she would be at dying 1 because the last sentence on the spell description talks about combining damage into one instance of damage, but there was not consensus at the table about that call. In my mind that falls under the “so forth,” but I acknowledge “so forth” isn’t tight rules jargon. It ended up mattering greatly because I rolled a 2 on my dying flat check that round, so if she was at dying 2 instead, she’d be dead. It seems a little harsh to me that one higher level casting of force barrage (where you might be hit by 4+ shards with one casting) is instant death for a character with low HP. Is there somewhere in the rules that clarifies that more, or is it pretty much a table to table ruling? Sitsi is level 4 and ate two Rank 3 vampiric feast spells, the 2nd of which dropped her to 6 hp, so that encounter was really out to kill her.
You would be correct, the damage is combined, because if it was each a separate instance of damage, not only would it not have to have a clause that says it's combined, but by RAW each instance would be affected by resistances, weaknesses, etc. if it lacked the "combine the damage" clause, which is clearly not intended. The same could be said for weapons that have multiple damage types; if the base damage from the weapon is enough to drop me, but it also does multiple types of bonus damage, those would likewise work similarly.
That being said, this could still have been done if two separate instances of Force Barrage was cast, each for a singular action, but in this case there is a cost of a limited resource being burned, which is balanced out in that respect. Of course, the odds of either enemies or players specifically working this out is so unlikely that it would have to be purposefully done for this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Weird niche case regarding instances of damage, if you are able to use two splash traited attacks that are combined, say with dual slash via dual thrower. Targets around the initial target will take two instances of splash damage even though the main target will take combined splash damage as a part of a single instance, due to how the damage is dealt/trait is worded
Now I 100% don't expect the devs intended that interraction and I would combine for simplicity and to stop shenanigans vs enemies with weaknesses. After all it is already dumb that the splash trait means that if your enemy is stronger than you and has a weakness it is often better to target an ally with a backfire mantle and minor alchemical bombs than to target the enemy directly.
But still a fun exception.
|
There's the procedural element - Force Barrage says to combine damage for missiles aimed at a single target, so that you can't for example get an absolutely massive boost on a single target from bardic music or unleashing psyche. So the damage is already combined for that, you shouldn't split it up again.
But there's also the fuzzier "too extreme to be true" argument - there's no good reason why this spell should be far far deadlier than other spells in the same level band. If it was supposed to be super deadly, it'd have the Death trait. Since the designers didn't put a "this should be extra deadly" signal on it, we should choose the more moderate interpretation.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
"It's almost down, finish it quickly!"
"Ok, I'll cast a Cone of Cold!"
"No, it's not enough to kill it off."
"Sure, I have an Implosion ready..."
"Still not enough."
"I get it, I'll have to resort to my rank 1 Force Barrage then. Say your prayers!"
There's the procedural element - Force Barrage says to combine damage for missiles aimed at a single target, so that you can't for example get an absolutely massive boost on a single target from bardic music or unleashing psyche. So the damage is already combined for that, you shouldn't split it up again.
But there's also the fuzzier "too extreme to be true" argument - there's no good reason why this spell should be far far deadlier than other spells in the same level band. If it was supposed to be super deadly, it'd have the Death trait. Since the designers didn't put a "this should be extra deadly" signal on it, we should choose the more moderate interpretation.
Nah, there are enemies immune to effecra with the Death trait, so putting it on a spell like Force Barrage when a spell like Disintegrate doesn't have it falls under TBTBT.
|
|
Nah, there are enemies immune to effecra with the Death trait, so putting it on a spell like Force Barrage when a spell like Disintegrate doesn't have it falls under TBTBT.There's the procedural element - Force Barrage says to combine damage for missiles aimed at a single target, so that you can't for example get an absolutely massive boost on a single target from bardic music or unleashing psyche. So the damage is already combined for that, you shouldn't split it up again.
But there's also the fuzzier "too extreme to be true" argument - there's no good reason why this spell should be far far deadlier than other spells in the same level band. If it was supposed to be super deadly, it'd have the Death trait. Since the designers didn't put a "this should be extra deadly" signal on it, we should choose the more moderate interpretation.
Disintegrate doesn't need the death trait because it says "A creature reduced to 0 HP is reduced to fine powder; its gear remains."
Creatures with immunity to death effects are mostly undead and constructs which are destroyed at 0HP anyway, so don't interact with Dying rules at all.
I don't buy that force barrage was intended to be far deadlier than other spells. If that was the intent, there would be flags and sirens on it saying so.
Obviously, but saying it should have things like the Death trait isn't exactly conveying the message properly either, since all constructs/undead being immune to Force Barrage is also likely not intended.
I'm kind of uneasy that you guys attach so much significance to combining damage in the spell.
So what, if there are several types of damage, a spell hits dying creature that much times? Let's look at the Cataclysm: there are 7 types of damage in it. So if a creature is striken down to dying with the first acid damage, it then gets another 6 instances of damage and gets to dying 7? O_o
Yeah. And also similar to the comparison to boosting damage mentioned earlier. If Cataclysm is cast while you have a +1 circumstance bonus to damage, does that apply to all of the damage types separately?
And we don't have to go to high-Rank spells for this either. How about if you drop an enemy with a weapon Strike while having the effect of Flame Wisp. Does the Flame Wisp effect hit as a separate instance of damage that will increase the Dying value of the creature after you drop it with the Strike?
How is Flame Wisp mechanically different regarding instance of damage rules than a Flaming Rune or an Energy Mutagen? It has a different narrative description, yes. But how about the mechanics?
I'm kind of uneasy that you guys attach so much significance to combining damage in the spell.
So what, if there are several types of damage, a spell hits dying creature that much times? Let's look at the Cataclysm: there are 7 types of damage in it. So if a creature is striken down to dying with the first acid damage, it then gets another 6 instances of damage and gets to dying 7? O_oYeah. And also similar to the comparison to boosting damage mentioned earlier. If Cataclysm is cast while you have a +1 circumstance bonus to damage, does that apply to all of the damage types separately?
And we don't have to go to high-Rank spells for this either. How about if you drop an enemy with a weapon Strike while having the effect of Flame Wisp. Does the Flame Wisp effect hit as a separate instance of damage that will increase the Dying value of the creature after you drop it with the Strike?
How is Flame Wisp mechanically different regarding instance of damage rules than a Flaming Rune or an Energy Mutagen? It has a different narrative description, yes. But how about the mechanics?
in the case of Flame Wisp i would say yes, since it dont add damage to the strike but the spell itself deal damage when you make a strike.
Each time you hit a creature with a Strike, one of the wisps goes hurtling towards that creature, dealing 1d4 fire damage.
Flaming rune adds damage to the strike.
The weapon deals an additional 1d6 fire damage on a successful Strike
same with mutagen
Force barrage i would say is clear cut aswell
If you shoot more than one shard at the same target, combine the damage before applying bonuses or penalties to damage, resistances, weaknesses, and so forth.
its always one damage instance and that what matters, not that it comes from several bolts.
Even with spells like cataclysm, I would treat them as a single instance of damage for the purposes of how they interact with death and dying.
I would go completely in the opposite direction, however, and treat it as multiple instances of damage when determining how it would interact with multiple damage resistances, or resist all.
Even with spells like cataclysm, I would treat them as a single instance of damage for the purposes of how they interact with death and dying.
I would go completely in the opposite direction, however, and treat it as multiple instances of damage when determining how it would interact with multiple damage resistances, or resist all.
No need for GM ruling on this for things like Cataclysm, the rule for Resistance is clear, things like resistance to all applies to all damage types
it’s possible to have resistance to all damage. When an effect deals damage of multiple types and you have resistance to all damage, apply the resistance to each type of damage separately. If an attack would deal 7 slashing damage and 4 fire damage, resistance 5 to all damage would reduce the slashing damage to 2 and negate the fire damage entirely.
Edit: i guess you point was that its still only one instace of damage for dying and on that i agree.
So it seems there is general consensus on the effect of dying values with force barrage but a player just raised another issue with the spell for us.
The GM targeting Sitsi with 2 missiles targeted a second PC with a third missile. Foundry VTT only lets you roll one 1d4+1 at a time with this spell, so we’ve been doing it where we roll once for each missile, but apparently 5e with magic missile does it where you only roll 1 time and then apply this result to all missiles. Apparently foundry does this with PF2 as well because of the simultaneous damage rule, but that feels wrong to me, but maybe my instinct is off. How do other people resolve a rank 1 casting of force barrage with 3 actions? Do you roll each missile separately? Do you roll once for all missiles? Is there a clear rules reason for this or just personal preference?
The reason I dislike rolling only one d4 and applying it to all missiles, even if they were all targeting different enemies is that it makes the spell 25% chance max damage, 25% chance minimum damage for 50% if all results with every casting. That just feels off compared to other spells. Rolling max (or min) damage with 6,9,12 or even more missiles seems very off to me as far as spell intention. What do you all think?
I roll for every bolt. That is, 3 missiles would be 3d4+3, not (1d4+1)×3.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So it seems there is general consensus on the effect of dying values with force barrage but a player just raised another issue with the spell for us.
The GM targeting Sitsi with 2 missiles targeted a second PC with a third missile. Foundry VTT only lets you roll one 1d4+1 at a time with this spell, so we’ve been doing it where we roll once for each missile, but apparently 5e with magic missile does it where you only roll 1 time and then apply this result to all missiles. Apparently foundry does this with PF2 as well because of the simultaneous damage rule, but that feels wrong to me, but maybe my instinct is off. How do other people resolve a rank 1 casting of force barrage with 3 actions? Do you roll each missile separately? Do you roll once for all missiles? Is there a clear rules reason for this or just personal preference?
The reason I dislike rolling only one d4 and applying it to all missiles, even if they were all targeting different enemies is that it makes the spell 25% chance max damage, 25% chance minimum damage for 50% if all results with every casting. That just feels off compared to other spells. Rolling max (or min) damage with 6,9,12 or even more missiles seems very off to me as far as spell intention. What do you all think?
5E isn't ran this way, and sounds more like an issue of VTT glitching/laziness than an actual rules issue, since the written rule is quite clear, each missile does 1D4+1 damage, and each missile's damage total is combined to a singular total before applying it to an enemy.
I agree with you that I like to run it that way, but the spell doesn’t say each shard does 1d4+1. It says the shard does 1d4+1, and then a separate sentence talks about the number of shards. Which doesn’t mean that we are wrong necessarily, but it does feel like it leaves open the possible reading that all shards would do the same damage.
I know nothing about 5e, only that my player said it works that way over there.
I agree with you that I like to run it that way, but the spell doesn’t say each shard does 1d4+1. It says the shard does 1d4+1, and then a separate sentence talks about the number of shards. Which doesn’t mean that we are wrong necessarily, but it does feel like it leaves open the possible reading that all shards would do the same damage.
I know nothing about 5e, only that my player said it works that way over there.
Though off-topic, your 5e player is wrong. Each dart deals 1d4+1 and you roll all of them separetely.
As for Force Barrage, I get what you mean, but to me the fact that the spell says "combine" implies each d4+1 shard is rolled separately and then added together. Otherwise it'd say something like:
"If you shoot more than one shard at the same target, multiply the damage by the number of shards before applying bonuses or penalties to damage, resistances, weaknesses, and so forth."
Which would be a lot less ambiguous. Also, I've never seen anyone use this logic for something like double slice or flurry of blows, both of which have the same kind of "combine" language. But even when attacking one guy witht he same unarmed strike in flurry, nobody has ever said you should just multiply the damage of one strike.
The complexity with force barrage is that you get control of each missile. Generally when targeting multiple creatures with one damaging spell you only roll damage once, then apply that to each target. Do you all roll separate damage for multiple scorching rays? Sometimes, force barrage can be used that way, but it can also be used to target 1 creature or asymmetrically against 2 or more creatures.
I do prefer to treat each missile/shard separate for rolling damage, but that does lead to some confusion with players thinking each shard is a separate instance of damage. Not enough for me to want to do it differently either, but there is perhaps more ambiguity than is necessary.
I do prefer to treat each missile/shard separate for rolling damage, but that does lead to some confusion with players thinking each shard is a separate instance of damage. Not enough for me to want to do it differently either, but there is perhaps more ambiguity than is necessary.
Does fireball do six instances of damage because you roll 6d6 instead of 1d6*6?
I think everyone agrees fireball does one instance of damage to every target. You only roll the damage once though, not for each target individually. The same should be true of scorching ray, right?
Magic missile/force barrage is different because there is so much flexibility on how you target with it. I agree that no matter how you split up the missiles, each target only takes one instance of damage, and I think the spell should work where, after declaring targets, you roll damage for each shard separately. But the rules don’t state that very explicitly, and if you directed 1 missile at each target the spell would work very similarly to scorching ray. I don’t think it should work that way and don’t recommend running it that way, but it seems like Foundry VTT runs it that way and players seem confused about it.
I agree with you that I like to run it that way, but the spell doesn’t say each shard does 1d4+1. It says the shard does 1d4+1, and then a separate sentence talks about the number of shards. Which doesn’t mean that we are wrong necessarily, but it does feel like it leaves open the possible reading that all shards would do the same damage.
I know nothing about 5e, only that my player said it works that way over there.
It says it because the spell is written as a one-action version, with the option to add actions to add shards, as well as heightening simply adding shards. Logic dictates that if 1 Shard = 1D4+1 damage, then 3 Shards = 3D4+3.
After all, damage rolls have concise rules and none of them state that you only roll once and apply it to every damage dice involved. It also makes no sense if you have abilities with differing dice; if I use a D12 weapon that has a D6 weapon rune, do I roll the D12 and apply its result to the D6, even though I could roll above the maximum value allotted for the D6?
This is like saying you only roll 1 dice on a Strike and multiply it based on the number of weapon dice you get from Striking Runes, feats like Power Attack, One-Inch Punch, etc. It's both TGTBT (I only need to roll 1 dice to maximize damage) and TBTBT (I only need to roll 1 dice to minimize damage).
Also, 5E doesn't do this. Nothing in any game ever does this. Really, your player is trying to pull one over on you than the rules actually working that way.
I think everyone agrees fireball does one instance of damage to every target. You only roll the damage once though, not for each target individually. The same should be true of scorching ray, right?
Magic missile/force barrage is different because there is so much flexibility on how you target with it. I agree that no matter how you split up the missiles, each target only takes one instance of damage, and I think the spell should work where, after declaring targets, you roll damage for each shard separately. But the rules don’t state that very explicitly, and if you directed 1 missile at each target the spell would work very similarly to scorching ray. I don’t think it should work that way and don’t recommend running it that way, but it seems like Foundry VTT runs it that way and players seem confused about it.
No? Why would it be the same?
Fireball is 1 ball of flame, so it makes sense to have 1 number rolled for it.
Scorching ray is 3 distinctively seperate rays, so you roll 3 times.Would you roll damage only once for something like Hunted Shot that targets two different targets with your arrows just because Impaling finisher rolls only once when it hits 2 targets?
I am sorry, I was operating under the misrememory of scorching ray being one attack roll, not a separate attack roll for each ray. Something like slashing gust or even the swipe feat would be a better comparison point. Swipe at least is explicit in calling out that only one attack roll and one damage roll is used to apply to all targets, so maybe that can serve as the rules based refutation to why magic missile/force barrage does require a separate roll for each shard, even though the spell doesn’t explicitly say that: because the default is to roll for each shard as a separate attack, that just requires no attack roll.
I bet few people have used it, but do you all, or would you, have a player roll damage separately for 2 targets of slashing gust? I had not previously.
I bet few people have used it, but do you all, or would you, have a player roll damage separately for 2 targets of slashing gust? I had not previously.
Yes, you would. It's two separate checks, meaning two separate attacks, meaning two separate damage rolls.
Force Barrage would technically have each shard be its own instance of damage, but the rules expressly state to combine them all into one instance for resistances/weaknesses and such.
Slashing gust says:
Make a spell attack roll against each target's AC.
I read that as one spell attack roll, or it would have said "make spell attack rolls against each target's AC."
Question:
How about a seneschal witch using Manifest Will:
(Arcane: Raw energy and magical formulae circulate around you. A creature that begins its turn in the emanation gains weakness X to spell damage for 1 round.)
They cast a Force Barrage (3-actions)
3 separate targets would each take 1d4+1+X damage
OR
1 target would take 3d4+3+X damage
correct?
Lets say instead they cast three separate 1 action Force Barrages.
They are cast separately, though each spell chooses to target the one creature. Burning through 3 spells would the damage now become:
(1d4+1+X)x3 ??