Int mod to Wizard's spell damage?

A friend of mine (also a DM of the playtest) mentioned adding the controlling trait modifier to spell damage. Naturally, I suggested he was mistaken -- that spells contained all of their damage information within their text. He pointed out page 12 in the How to Play information under Damage Rolls:



Each weapon and spell indicates the damage it

deals, such as 1d8 or 2d8. Roll the dice, add any

modifiers (including the ability modifier you used

to make the attack), and apply the damage to your


target. Magic weapons, special abilities, and so

forth can grant a bonus to your damage.


Well, I can see he has a case as the rules are written, even though it does seem to contradict the text under the various trait listings where St and Dex are called out for adding to Weapon damage rolls, but Int, Wis and Cha are not. 

Is there a ruling on this that I've just missed? 

Slagathore
The text you quoted is from the first playtest packet--unfortunately, when they changed the spells, they neglected to edit that text to reflect the changes.

So, technically, by strict wording?  Yes, you add your Intelligence.  In reality?  It is extremely, painfully obvious that you are not supposed to add your stat to spell damage, now that they have built in static modifiers. 
Storyteller, that was an excellent response! Nicely worded. I find myself in complete agreement with your sentiments. I do look forward to their reworking the spells again. Trait bonuses instead of static bonuses and progressive spell effects (additional magic missiles and extra d6 on fireballs with level progression) are much needed. Not to mention a bit of realignment to match the power curve.
 
I think that in cases where you would add an INT modifier, thr spell description would specifically say so .
Aehrion68, I have been reading it that way myself, but the nature of rules sets (which thestoryteller rightly points out haven't really been updated to match the spell update) would mean that the general rule applied unless specifically overridden by a specific rule (such is the case that although weapons report a specific amount of damage, the rule to add your ST or Dex overrides it). 

I think this is a case where we must use good judgment and rule as you have, Aehrion68.
 
We had the same questions and ended up trying a test session each way.  To be honest, it didn't seem like adding the extra damage for spellcasters was that bad (at least at low levels).  It definately had an impact and average encounters were quicker with less grinding.

When we replayed the same encounters without the extra damage, the outcome was more or less the same, encounters just took a bit longer to finish.  The easy ones were still easy, the hard ones were still hard, but it didn't feel unbalanced.  The most notable difference other than shortened combats was which at wills were used more often (at will spells vs at will melee attacks).

The test party consisted of a Guardian Cleric and Bladesinger Fighter with Ray of Frost and Shocking Grasp, both first level, so there was lots of at will spells being tossed around.  We did 5 counters built for a two man part with encounters increasing from easy to hard.
I'd rather not have mages add their Int to the damage. The static is fine. I don't really want every stat linked to combat.
I think the idea was to add INT to damage roll that required a hit roll and not to attacks that simply applied AoE damage without the hit roll, although this risks a smal bit of extra complication.  I suspect the next playtest packet will clarify.
Would it really hurt anything?
The difference between 5d6 and 5d6+4 seems fairly insignifcant.
Would it really hurt anything?
The difference between 5d6 and 5d6+4 seems fairly insignifcant.

But the differences between 1d6+3 and 1d6+7, 1d4+1 and 1d4+5, and even 4d4 and 4d4+4 are much more significant.

In the case of Magic Missile, for example, it nearly triples the damage.  That's a big deal.

I think the idea was to add INT to damage roll that required a hit roll and not to attacks that simply applied AoE damage without the hit roll, although this risks a smal bit of extra complication.  I suspect the next playtest packet will clarify.


and have you noticed that mainly single target spells apply a bonus to damage, and most aoe/multi target spells dont
Would it really hurt anything?
The difference between 5d6 and 5d6+4 seems fairly insignifcant.



With an AoE the difference would be very significant with total damage dealt.  The spells that state to make a magical attack are single target spells.  The spells that simply apply area damage don't have the magical attack and already have larger damage dice.

5d6 averages 17.5 damage already and hits multiple targets.  Being able to hit 6 targets is already 105 total damage on average that comes out fast and the number of 5' squares a 20' radius fireball touches can easily go beyond 6 targets.  105 is already pretty good damage and 129 is a pretty big increases on that.

I don't see a lot of abilities giving a +24 bonus to damage on top of the 30d6 already done, even if it is spread out.
I think the idea was to add INT to damage roll that required a hit roll and not to attacks that simply applied AoE damage without the hit roll, although this risks a smal bit of extra complication.  I suspect the next playtest packet will clarify.


and have you noticed that mainly single target spells apply a bonus to damage, and most aoe/multi target spells dont



I notice all kinds of things, including the fact that some single target spells have bonuses to damage.  Who's to say that isn't meant to work with stat bonus to damage if not WotC?  Hence I suspect we'll get clarification on what is intended with the next playtest package.

Unless you have some other point?
I think the idea was to add INT to damage roll that required a hit roll and not to attacks that simply applied AoE damage without the hit roll, although this risks a smal bit of extra complication.  I suspect the next playtest packet will clarify.


and have you noticed that mainly single target spells apply a bonus to damage, and most aoe/multi target spells dont



I notice all kinds of things, including the fact that some single target spells have bonuses to damage.  Who's to say that isn't meant to work with stat bonus to damage if not WotC?  Hence I suspect we'll get clarification on what is intended with the next playtest package.

Unless you have some other point?



i was just pointing out about bonuses going to single target and not to AoE
'
emphasising your point
I think the idea was to add INT to damage roll that required a hit roll and not to attacks that simply applied AoE damage without the hit roll, although this risks a smal bit of extra complication.  I suspect the next playtest packet will clarify.


and have you noticed that mainly single target spells apply a bonus to damage, and most aoe/multi target spells dont



I notice all kinds of things, including the fact that some single target spells have bonuses to damage.  Who's to say that isn't meant to work with stat bonus to damage if not WotC?  Hence I suspect we'll get clarification on what is intended with the next playtest package.

Unless you have some other point?



i was just pointing out about bonuses going to single target and not to AoE
'
emphasising your point



Got ya.  I wasn't sure and I can be think sometimes.  Wink
Would it really hurt anything?
The difference between 5d6 and 5d6+4 seems fairly insignificant.

But the differences between 1d6+3 and 1d6+7, 1d4+1 and 1d4+5, and even 4d4 and 4d4+4 are much more significant.

In the case of Magic Missile, for example, it nearly triples the damage.  That's a big deal.


Based on the text it seems to only apply to spells with an attack roll, which rules out AoE and Magic Missile.  For the most part this applies to at-will spells and a hand full of single target spells.

I like it because it keeps low level casters effective and reduces grinding when spamming at-wills, which is a near constant occurrence at low levels, but its usefulness on daily's is pretty limited.  The more daily's used, the less impact it has, making it a good low level bump that is eventually replaced by dailies.
Hey folks,

This is more of a Playtest Packet Discussion than a DM Playtest Session, so I'm moving it along.

Thanks,

Monica
Would it really hurt anything?
The difference between 5d6 and 5d6+4 seems fairly insignificant.

But the differences between 1d6+3 and 1d6+7, 1d4+1 and 1d4+5, and even 4d4 and 4d4+4 are much more significant.

In the case of Magic Missile, for example, it nearly triples the damage.  That's a big deal.


Based on the text it seems to only apply to spells with an attack roll, which rules out AoE and Magic Missile.  For the most part this applies to at-will spells and a hand full of single target spells.

I like it because it keeps low level casters effective and reduces grinding when spamming at-wills, which is a near constant occurrence at low levels, but its usefulness on daily's is pretty limited.  The more daily's used, the less impact it has, making it a good low level bump that is eventually replaced by dailies.



This. The RAW state that you add the modifier you use to make the attack. So if the spell includes an attack roll, you would add your int modifier to the damage.
...add any damage modifiers (Including the ability modifier you used to make the attack).

My two copper.
This. The RAW state that you add the modifier you use to make the attack.

Yes, the RAW that was very clearly mistakenly not changed from the first packet despite the obvious design change of the spells says that.

I don't think there's ever been a more clear RAI answer in the history of rule disputes.  Ray of Frost deals 1d6+3, not 1d6+3+Int.  The developers just didn't realize that they had to change more than just the spells to get that fact across.

Yes, it does seem clear that the designers just didn't finish their work on the spell list in time for GenCon. Many of us would rather see the stats count for something (other than to hit and saves -- all be it important things) int for the wizard isn't as important as St for the fighter (or even more dramatc, Dex for the Dex fighter or rigue).

 
No, spells do not gain a bonus to damage from Int/Wis/Cha in this round of the playtest.  This is made clear in the sections on the abilities themselves as well as in the section on spells.  True, there is the general thing in damage rolls telling you to add the ability modifier you used to make the attack, but in the Int/Wis/Cha sections it explains that they add to attack, and do not say that they add to damage.

And yes, it's intentional.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I think it is a safe bet to say they are not ment to since they reworded all the spells from one packet to the next.

I don't think it is a big deal if they go eithor way with it. Then again we still don't know what mid and high level play will look like yet, so it is possible they detected a problem that would crop up at those levels if it was used. Which prompted the change.
DMG pg 263 "No matter what a rule's source, a rule serves you, not the other way around."
The spells that have static modifiers, this is because those are the "at-will" spells.  Most spells that use a Vancian "fire and forget" system generally get more dice for their damage.  the static modifiers on the 0-level spells is to reduce the amount of variability and overall damage they do.

And yes, right now, RAW, wizards add INT modifier to all spell damage.
The spells that have static modifiers, this is because those are the "at-will" spells.  Most spells that use a Vancian "fire and forget" system generally get more dice for their damage.  the static modifiers on the 0-level spells is to reduce the amount of variability and overall damage they do.

And yes, right now, RAW, wizards add INT modifier to all spell damage.



No, they don't.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I've found three threads that discuss this issue.  Most people seem to think its a mistake that wizards will fix but even with most recent packet it is not addressed.

Hopefully this will get officially fixed. 
Sign In to post comments