Magic Missile/Scorching Ray Damage

[larzz48]

This is either a very obvious bug or just a gross oversight on my part, but since I've not found a Thread, I'm assuming it's me... I very well may have missed a Thread on topic, but I've been combing the forum and I've done a search and I've found nothing. If anyone can set me straight, I would appreciate it.

I'm using the Character Mini in 3.5E and it provides a very nice interface for casters' spell attacks and damage. However, for spells that use an increasing multiple projectiles while keeping the damage for each static do not appear to be represented correctly (e.g. at CL 5 and Magic Missile still only shows 1d4+1 damage).

How are other people dealing with this? Do you just hit the damage once for each Missile or Ray? That seems a little be cumbersome and prone to error...

[Trenloe]

You need to modify the spell damage to include "Odd CLs" (odd caster levels) as a multiplier for the 1d4 and the +1 damage. See below:
3258
To get here, press the small grey dice after the spell description (before the ink button) and then press the down arrow after the damage entry. This will display the extra parameters to select.

[Myrmidion]

And there is to mention, that he has to set the maximum casterlevel to five :)
in case of the magic missile spell.

[Trenloe]

And there is to mention, that he has to set the maximum casterlevel to five :)
in case of the magic missile spell.
Actually, max caster level of 9 = 5 magic missiles. :)

[JohnD]

The only down side of doing this is what happens when you want to fire 2 MM at evil cleric dude and the 3rd at evil wizard dude?

You have to split them up manually.

[gmkieran]

Kind of a kludge and certainly inelegant, but if you set up 5 damage entries with 1 through 5 d4 and bonuses equal to the number of dice, rather than the OCLs mod, you could simply select the one(s) appropriate to your level and desired number of strikes on any individual.

[Trenloe]

Probably just set up 2 entries - 1 that tracks how many missiles you actually have (based on odd CLs as shown above) and one that is just for a single missile. Then you can target whoever you wish and apply damage from each missile by double-clicking the damage entry for the single missile as many times as needed.

EDIT: The only issue with this is that you can no longer press the "cast" button as multiple damage will be applied to all targeted creatures - this results in any spell resistance not being taken into consideration. So, GMs will have to keep an eye on if creatures have SR and take it into account manually if Magic Missile is setup with multiple damage entries.

[lachancery]

Probably just set up 2 entries - 1 that tracks how many missiles you actually have (based on odd CLs as shown above) and one that is just for a single missile. Then you can target whoever you wish and apply damage from each missile by double-clicking the damage entry for the single missile as many times as needed.

EDIT: The only issue with this is that you can no longer press the "cast" button as multiple damage will be applied to all targeted creatures - this results in any spell resistance not being taken into consideration. So, GMs will have to keep an eye on if creatures have SR and take it into account manually if Magic Missile is setup with multiple damage entries.
Would creating an effect on the entry for the single missile that the player would trigger to add damage for additional missiles work for your edit above?

[Trenloe]

Would creating an effect on the entry for the single missile that the player would trigger to add damage for additional missiles work for your edit above?
It's possible, but if any SR did kick in then the GM would have to remove the extra damage effect/s manually. So, it's still a manual process somewhere. Unless the player have 2 magic missile spell entries - one for their maximum against one target and another with just a single for multiple targets and then roll the extra damage for those that get past SR. Still a bit of a manual process from the player side...

[larzz48]

You guys are awesome! Thanks for all the great suggestions and detailed analysis. I guess the pitfalls of the automatic damage are good arguements that the default programming is intentional.

I'll give these suggestions a test drive during our next session and post back what I find works best.

Thanks again!