So as far as the order of scribes feature goes...how about using the awakened spellbook feature to change up defense spells?
“When you cast a wizard spell with a spell slot, you can temporarily replace its damage type with a type that appears in another spell in your spell- book, which magically alters the spell's formula for this casting only. The latter spell must be of the same level as the spell slot you expend.”
the feature mentions the ability to change damage types of spells, but doesn’t actually limit it to just damage dealing spells.
Defensive spells that reference damage types for resistance or even immunity would apply, even though most people seem to focus on the ability to deal damage in different ways.
Intellect fortress could be changed to various different damage types as required depending on the slot used to cast it. Could get a lot of the benefits that protection from energy provides at the same spell level but add in the saving throw advantage. Seems nice against dragons or other creatures that deal large amounts of elemental damage and make use of saves. upcasting it to level 4 seems like you could target multiple allies with it and replicate stoneskin for damage type.
flame arrow becomes more attractive with the ability to switch up those damage types too.
elemental bane may prove a bit more useful with the ability to expand to other damage types while maintaining the ability to target more creatures with upcasting.
fireshield becomes a lot more versatile with this feature too.
5th level spell slots could unlock force damage types if necessary with steel wind strike. Also unlocks psychic damage if necessary for upcasting damaging spells. Wall of fire changing to force or psychic damage sounds cool as hell.
Unfortunately I'm not sure this applies; damage type appears to specifically refer to dealing damage, it specifically refers to "damage resistances" as being a separate rule so I don't think the two would be interchangeable.
The intention of the Order of the Scribes feature appears to be to make it easier for you to bypass enemy resistances, not to make it easier for you to resist their damage type(s) once you know them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Unfortunately I'm not sure this applies; damage type appears to specifically refer to dealing damage, it specifically refers to "damage resistances" as being a separate rule so I don't think the two would be interchangeable.
The intention of the Order of the Scribes feature appears to be to make it easier for you to bypass enemy resistances, not to make it easier for you to resist their damage type(s) once you know them.
PHB pg 196, Damage types.
DAMAGE TYPES Different attacks, damaging spells, and other harmful effects deal different types of damage. Damage types · have no rules of their own, but other rules, such as damage resistance, rely on the types. The damage types follow, with examples to help a DM assign a damage type to a new effect. Acid. The corrosive spray of a black dragon's breath and the dissolving enzymes secreted by a black pudding deal acid damage. Bludgeoning. Blunt force attacks-hammers, falling, constriction, and the like-deal bludgeoning damage. Cold. The infernal chill radiating from an ice devil's spear and the frigid blast of a white dragon's breath deal cold damage. Fire. Red dragons breathe fire, and many spells conjure flames to deal fire damage. Force. Force is pure magical energy focused into a damaging form. Most effects that deal force damage are spells, including magic missile and spiritual weapon. Lightning. A lightning bolt spell and a blue dragon's breath deal lightning damage. Necrotic. Necrotic damage, dealt by certain undead and a spell such as chill touch, withers matter and even the soul. Piercing. Puncturing and impaling attacks, including spears and monsters' bites, deal piercing damage. Poison. Venomous stings and the toxic gas of a green dragon's breath deal poison damage. Psychic. Mental abilities such as a mind flayer's psionic blast deal psychic damage. Radiant. Radiant damage, dealt by a cleric's flame strike spell or an angel's smiting weapon, sears the flesh like fire and overloads the spirit with power. Slashing. Swords, axes, and monsters' claws deal slashing damage. Thunder. A concussive burst of sound, such as the effect of the thunderwave spell, deals thunder damage.
Could you use this feature with the trigger to Absorb Elements? You’ve got Catapult in your spellbook and now you can Trigger for reduction on Bludgeoning damage?
There are arguments on both side whether or not this feature applies to abilities like Protection from Energy, Protection from Poison, or the Investiture spells. Then other questions about whether you can change multiple damage types in a spell like Flame Strike has. So far there has been no clear direction on this so it would be best to ask your DM how they would like to play this feature.
Could you use this feature with the trigger to Absorb Elements? You’ve got Catapult in your spellbook and now you can Trigger for reduction on Bludgeoning damage?
Sadly this feature is not usable with Absorb Elements as you cannot even cast the spell unless you are hit with one of the listed damage types. So no that would work to get resistance on any damage other than acid, cold, fire, lightning, or thunder damage.
Different attacks, damaging spells, and other harmful effects deal different types of damage. Damage types · have no rules of their own, but other rules, such as damage resistance, rely on the types.
Are you disagreeing? The part you've highlighted is the exact part I'm referencing; it makes it clear that damage types and damage resistances are considered to be separate features. While a damage resistance might refer to a damage type that it protects you against, it doesn't have a damage type in the same way that a spell that actually deals that kind of damage does.
Put another way, while a fireball deals the damage type fire directly, what fire shield does is to provide fire resistance, which in turn reduces damage from fire damage type; the latter spell doesn't have a damage type as such, it has a resistance which then uses a damage type to define how it functions.
Granted the distinction is not super well defined, and hopefully Sage Advice or similar will clarify, but I don't think it's intended to work with resistances (or immunities, if there are any spells granting them, I forget). This is because bypassing a target's resistances to deal your normal amount of damage is very different to rendering yourself resistant (or immune) to potentially all of an enemy's attacks on a whim.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
There are arguments on both side whether or not this feature applies to abilities like Protection from Energy, Protection from Poison, or the Investiture spells. Then other questions about whether you can change multiple damage types in a spell like Flame Strike has. So far there has been no clear direction on this so it would be best to ask your DM how they would like to play this feature.
Could you use this feature with the trigger to Absorb Elements? You’ve got Catapult in your spellbook and now you can Trigger for reduction on Bludgeoning damage?
Sadly this feature is not usable with Absorb Elements as you cannot even cast the spell unless you are hit with one of the listed damage types. So no that would work to get resistance on any damage other than acid, cold, fire, lightning, or thunder damage.
“When you cast a wizard spell with a spell slot, you can temporarily replace its damage type with a type that appears in another spell in your spell- book, which magically alters the spell's formula for this casting only. The latter spell must be of the same level as the spell slot you expend.”
so it says you can “temporarily replace it’s damage type” with “a type” from another spell in your book. There’s language used here that seems to restrict the change to a single damage type from the additional spell. I wouldn’t personally allow multiple changes of a spell cast to be replaced with multiple types, but I would allow multiple damage types of the spell cast to all be changed to a single damage type from another spell.
I am disagreeing. The part I highlighted says that there are no rules about damage types, but that other features make use of the term. The reference even gives the example of resistance being a feature that uses the term itself. Frankly I don’t understand what’s unclear about it.
also...
FIRE SHIELD 4th-level evocation Casting Time: 1 action Range: Self Components: V, S, M (a bit of phosphorus or a firefly) Duration: 10 minutes Thin and wispy flames wreathe your body for the duration, shedding bright light in a 10-foot radius and dim light for an additional 10 feet. You can end the spell early by using an action to dismiss it. The flames provide you with a warm shield or a chill shield, as you choose. The warm shield grants you resistance to cold damage, and the chill shield grants you resistance to fire damage. In addition, whenever a creature within 5 feet ofyou hits you with a melee attack, the shield erupts with flame. The attacker takes 2d8 fire damage from a warm shield, or 2d8 cold damage from a cold shield.
the spell refers to damage types multiple times in its description between damage rolls and resistances.
I am disagreeing. The part I highlighted says that there are no rules about damage types, but that other features make use of the term. The reference even gives the example of resistance being a feature that uses the term itself. Frankly I don’t understand what’s unclear about it.
The individual damage types themselves don't have rules, but there grouped under the "damage type" rule itself; this is a departure from previous editions where each damage type had its own unique effects (necrotic reduced max HP, poison poisoned etc.).
Where the distinction is is that what you're seeking to swap is not the damage type, but the resistance; I forgot that Fire Shield also deals damage of its own, so you could absolutely swap that (as it is directly dealing a damage type), but what you're hoping to swap isn't just the damage type of the spell, but a damage resistance that it grants, which is its own rule. Put another way, a resistance is triggered by a damage type, it isn't granting one, it's also a step removed from the spell.
You've also again ignored my point about this feature interacting with damage resistances very likely not being intended; as I've already said twice now, changing a resistance is very different to changing the damage you deal. If you attack a creature and find it is resistant to fire, then switching damage type is something most Wizards will already do, the advantage an Order of Scribes Wizard has is that instead of having to cast a different spell you can cast the same spell (with any preferred rider effect(s) you want) while swapping the type, allowing you deal normal damage against that target (assuming you find something it isn't resistant to). It's an upgraded form of what most casters do anyway as it's easy for most Wizards to cover most of the major damage types, the advantage for Order of Scribes is in flexibility, and potentially saving a few spell choices depending how you pick them. Swapping resistances however means you can effectively double your hit-points no matter what damage type an enemy throws your way, and I cannot believe that that is intended, especially not if you can gain it simply by having a spell of the same level that deals that damage (e.g- trying to use Absorb Elements to resist force damage because you have Magic Missile).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Damage type isn’t a rule. There’s a paragraph about it stating that there aren’t damage type rules, but it’s a game term that other rules make use of. And again, the example specifies resistance as making use of “damage type”.
“You've also again ignored my point about this feature interacting with damage resistances very likely not being intended” I ignored your “intent” part because we dont know the intent, but we do know what’s written. I tweeted out for validation to the powers that be, if you want you can retweet or make your own requests. Arguing intent at this point with no other clarification is more like saying” well this was my first impression, so no...”. You’re free to play however you like I suppose. You can restrict player features too if you’re a DM and you’re players are willing to go along with that I guess.
As for the feature being powerful if it allows resistance changing, yea, that’s the point of the tread. To point out the RAW and spread the knowledge/awareness of the features versatility that no one seems to have noticed.
“as I've already said twice now, changing a resistance is very different to changing the damage you deal.” the feature doesn’t make a distinction beyond spells about what you’re changing damage type for. it specifies damage type which can generally impact:
• damage rolls • static damage • resistance. • immunity (probably but I can’t actually find references...) • vulnerability
“Some creatures and objects are exceedingly difficult or unusually easy to hurt with certain types of damage.
If a creature or an object has resistance to a damage type, damage of that type is halved against it. If a creature or an object has vulnerability to a damage type, damage of that type is doubled against it. Resistance and then vulnerability are applied after all other modifiers to damage. For example, a creature has resistance to bludgeoning damage and is hit by an attack that deals 25 bludgeoning damage. The creature is also within a magical aura that reduces all damage by 5. The 25 damage is first reduced by 5 and then halved, so the creature takes 10 damage.
Multiple instances of resistance or vulnerability that affect the same damage type count as only one instance. For example, if a creature has resistance to fire damage as well as resistance to all nonmagical damage, the damage of a nonmagical fire is reduced by half against the creature, not reduced by three-quarters.”
Also, resistance is a little more than doubling your effectivene hitpoints because odd number damage rolls would be rounded down.
i can’t find a single rule reference for immunity in the DMG or the PHB even though the word is used in quite a few features. There’s talk in the MM about immunity being lumped in with resistance and vulnerability though...
For comparison purposes we have a similar feature in tashas that was released for the sorcerer. The metamagic option transmuted spell.
”TRANSMUTED SPELL When you cast a spell that deals a type of damage from the following list, you can spend 1 sorcery point to change that damage type to one of the other listed types: acid, cold, fire, lightning, poi-son, thunder.”
as you can see, this feature has the ability to change damage types around. It’s limited to a specific list of damage types.
It’s also specifically limits the feature to spells that actually deal damage.
Damage type isn’t a rule. There’s a paragraph about it stating that there aren’t damage type rules, but it’s a game term that other rules make use of. And again, the example specifies resistance as making use of “damage type”.
The problem is you're still thinking of it with a step removed; you're not changing the damage type of the spell itself (as would be the case with the spell dealing damage), you're changing the damage type of a resistance that the spell grants, these aren't the same thing. Again, I've said the distinction isn't very well defined, and a DM could rule it either way, but I'm not at all convinced that swapping resistances is intended behaviour.
Put another way, a fire damage spell directly deals fire damage, a fire resistance spell gives you fire resistance, which is its own rule that then applies the effect of halving fire damage, it's a step removed. It's also worth noting that the damage type rule specifically refers to dealing a damage type, and then other rules using that damage type, this strongly suggests that a spell's damage type is only the damage it deals.
I also wouldn't take a difference in wording with a similar effect in Tasha's Cauldron as hard evidence, as there are quite a few examples of inconsistency in the book (just as there are in most of the books), with the way damage type is worded it is arguably only reinforcing that the damage must be dealt.
Swapping damage resistances is an interesting possibility, but it's also a very, very exploitable one, and I don't think it's intended at all.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I’m not thinking about it in a way that removes a step. You’re creating/including a step that isn’t applicable. I know that dealing damage and reducing damage are different things.
like I keep saying, the feature in no way limits itself to damage dealt, regardless of assumption about intent.
changing the damage type specified in a spell, regardless of what game feature is making use of that damage type, is exactly what the language describes.
the variations between abilities and features in the game that do similar things is on purpose. This is an exclusion based game. If you add or remove a single word from otherwise identical features, it can and usually does drastically change how those features work.
I’m not seeing the suggestive connections about what you’re saying, only strong assumptions limiting the feature beyond what is written.
people do make mistakes though, perhaps spreading awareness of this will bring errata to change it or approval about intentions.
I wonder what the difference between using a feature effectively and exploitation might be. It’s not like the feature still wouldn’t coast resources like slots and concentration. Even gaining immunity usually wouldn’t be as powerful as a regular wall of force or other strong spells.
As a bit of a more personal question, how often to you wait for a tweet or errata to play new features with different interpretations? Perhaps if a player brings it up? Are there any you can remember not being sure about that ended up getting changed or supported? The psi warrior bonus damage feature not interacting with critical hits was one for me that I wasn’t expecting. Since it’s counted as a separate instance of damage it has a ripple effect.
- It causes a second concentration save. -The bonus roll can also gain hexblade curse damage boost.
I’m not thinking about it in a way that removes a step. You’re creating/including a step that isn’t applicable. I know that dealing damage and reducing damage are different things.
I think I'm still not really explaining very well; the problem as I see it is that you're not just trying to swap a damage type, you're trying to change a damage resistance (or potentially an immunity), which is its own specific rule and not what the Awakened Spellbook feature enables you to do.
the variations between abilities and features in the game that do similar things is on purpose. This is an exclusion based game. If you add or remove a single word from otherwise identical features, it can and usually does drastically change how those features work.
I think you've missed one of the points I was making there, but while the sorcerer metamagic has the word "deal" in it, so does the actual section on Damage Type, I'm pretty sure the word as presented in the metamagic is redundant.
I wonder what the difference between using a feature effectively and exploitation might be. It’s not like the feature still wouldn’t coast resources like slots and concentration. Even gaining immunity usually wouldn’t be as powerful as a regular wall of force or other strong spells.
Actually there are a few resistance spells that don't require concentration; Fire Shield which I've already mentioned is one of them.
The most exploitable spell I've found so far is using Mind Blank which grants psychic damage immunity (along with immunity to being charmed or mind read/altered, immune even to Wish). While it's an 8th level spell it only requires a single action and lasts 24 hours without concentration, and you'd only need to know another 8th level spell with the damage type you really want to be immune to, so for one 8th level slot you could be immune to the main (or even only) damage type an enemy (or group of enemies) can deal once you know what you're up against.
I could have sworn there was a much lower level spell granting immunity to poison damage but either it's not in the Wizard list or not among the spells I have unlocked on D&D Beyond, but if I haven't just imagined it then it's possible a Wizard could get ahold of it to do the same thing at a lower level.
I'm a bit unclear on what happens for a spell like Stoneskin which grants multiple resistances, i.e- can you swap for any three you want? The wording on Awakened seems like no (as it refers to the spell's type as a singular).
As a bit of a more personal question, how often to you wait for a tweet or errata to play new features with different interpretations?
I think not at all; my groups tend to play quite fast and loose with a lot of homebrew/house-rules, which is probably why I care so much about what RAW is on here 😂
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Ok so I think I’m beginning to understand your interpretation... so you’re reading of the following description prioritizes the first sentence about dealing the damage in a way that somehow restricts the second sentence. Is it because it’s the first sentence? Would your interpretation change if the sentences were swapped?
DAMAGE TYPES Different attacks, damaging spells, and other harmful effects deal different types of damage.Damage types · have no rules of their own, but other rules, such as damage resistance, rely on the types.DAMAGE TYPES
I guess what I’m asking is, why would the first sentence prevent the second sentence from also being true?
DAMAGE TYPES Damage types · have no rules of their own, but other rules, such as damage resistance, rely on the types. Different attacks, damaging spells, and other harmful effects deal different types of damage.
as for the lower level spells with immunity, I think you may have been thinking of the shitty elemental spells that were released that no one uses. The spells Investiture of Fire and perhaps the other spells too. Yea I think they would be boosted immensely by this feature, but I don’t think they would be overpowered. The entire idea that a wizard can be more powerful IF they know about their foe is true regardless of a class or subclass choice in my opinion. Also that information being given out is entirely in the DMs hands.
Ok so I think I’m beginning to understand your interpretation... so you’re reading of the following description prioritizes the first sentence about dealing the damage in a way that somehow restricts the second sentence. Is it because it’s the first sentence? Would your interpretation change if the sentences were swapped?
It's not really the ordering I think, it's just that resistance and immunity are their own rules, and that's the part that you're actually trying to change. While the wording is super inconsistent (some things grant "fire resistance", others grant "resistance to fire damage" or even say damage type explicitly), even if you're thinking in terms of the logic of just changing the damage type , you're also changing the resistance or immunity itself, but the feature doesn't say you can so the issue is, can you override other rules through this?
The entire idea that a wizard can be more powerful IF they know about their foe is true regardless of a class or subclass choice in my opinion. Also that information being given out is entirely in the DMs hands.
While Wizards can absolutely (by design) cheese an enemy whose weaknesses/strengths they know in advance, the problem with using this feature is that it allows you do it during a fight with an enemy you literally just met. The 6th level Investitures's and 8th level Mind Blank both only require an action to cast, at which point you can become immune to all or most damage the enemy does with no drawbacks (unlike Resilient Sphere).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
It does have drawbacks. You spend a spell slot first which is loss. You spend concentration, which is another limitation. A wizard being immune to a type damage AND having to concentrate on that effect is much less impactful than you’re making it out to be. Best case scenario you have immunity to a damage type for probably one battle, probably on the first turn of battle since it takes an action to set up. A wizard concentrating on that defensive spell that affects only them is probably a bad use of the mechanic, especially at that level with that high of a spell slot. Hell, spending a 6th level slot as an action to prevent a wizard from taking a specific kind of damage sounds remarkably similar to trying to heal in battle before damage is done, and healing is usually horrible in combat. I think perhaps you’re comparing the level of impact to what would happen if a player was deeply knowledgeable about the game mechanics, and uses the versatility to an incredibly high degree of accuracy when guessing effective damage type. Worst case scenario, you choose the wrong damage type and it’s completely ineffective, and you’ve wasted your action and a spell slot. There’s even DMs out there who would change the damage type to monster is working with on the fly to “keep the encounter challenging” which would invalidate the feature anyways.
in the case of a dragon, the wizard would probably have to choose between slashing,piercing, bludgeoning, or some type of elemental damage type. The breath is obviously dangerous and easy to predict, but the melee attacks would still shred that same wizard.
pertaining to the apprehension about being able to change damage types for different features descriptions, I guess I follow a particular line of logic. All damage references in the game refer to damage type, even if they do so using different description or non standardized language. There is no type less damage in DND 5e. So with that, any reference to damage ranging from dealing it or taking it, inherently uses damage types. When I read the feature, it specifies changing damage type with no regard to individual rules or instances beyond it being required to be in a spell.
So as far as the order of scribes feature goes...how about using the awakened spellbook feature to change up defense spells?
“When you cast a wizard spell with a spell slot, you can temporarily replace its damage type with a type that appears in another spell in your spell- book, which magically alters the spell's formula for this casting only. The latter spell must be of the same level as the spell slot you expend.”
the feature mentions the ability to change damage types of spells, but doesn’t actually limit it to just damage dealing spells.
Defensive spells that reference damage types for resistance or even immunity would apply, even though most people seem to focus on the ability to deal damage in different ways.
Intellect fortress could be changed to various different damage types as required depending on the slot used to cast it. Could get a lot of the benefits that protection from energy provides at the same spell level but add in the saving throw advantage. Seems nice against dragons or other creatures that deal large amounts of elemental damage and make use of saves.
upcasting it to level 4 seems like you could target multiple allies with it and replicate stoneskin for damage type.
flame arrow becomes more attractive with the ability to switch up those damage types too.
elemental bane may prove a bit more useful with the ability to expand to other damage types while maintaining the ability to target more creatures with upcasting.
fireshield becomes a lot more versatile with this feature too.
5th level spell slots could unlock force damage types if necessary with steel wind strike. Also unlocks psychic damage if necessary for upcasting damaging spells. Wall of fire changing to force or psychic damage sounds cool as hell.
Unfortunately I'm not sure this applies; damage type appears to specifically refer to dealing damage, it specifically refers to "damage resistances" as being a separate rule so I don't think the two would be interchangeable.
The intention of the Order of the Scribes feature appears to be to make it easier for you to bypass enemy resistances, not to make it easier for you to resist their damage type(s) once you know them.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
PHB pg 196, Damage types.
DAMAGE TYPES
Different attacks, damaging spells, and other harmful effects deal different types of damage. Damage types · have no rules of their own, but other rules, such as damage resistance, rely on the types.
The damage types follow, with examples to help a DM assign a damage type to a new effect.
Acid. The corrosive spray of a black dragon's breath and the dissolving enzymes secreted by a black pudding deal acid damage.
Bludgeoning. Blunt force attacks-hammers, falling, constriction, and the like-deal bludgeoning damage.
Cold. The infernal chill radiating from an ice devil's spear and the frigid blast of a white dragon's breath deal cold damage.
Fire. Red dragons breathe fire, and many spells conjure flames to deal fire damage.
Force. Force is pure magical energy focused into a damaging form. Most effects that deal force damage are spells, including magic missile and spiritual weapon.
Lightning. A lightning bolt spell and a blue dragon's breath deal lightning damage.
Necrotic. Necrotic damage, dealt by certain undead and a spell such as chill touch, withers matter and even the soul.
Piercing. Puncturing and impaling attacks, including spears and monsters' bites, deal piercing damage.
Poison. Venomous stings and the toxic gas of a green dragon's breath deal poison damage.
Psychic. Mental abilities such as a mind flayer's psionic blast deal psychic damage.
Radiant. Radiant damage, dealt by a cleric's flame strike spell or an angel's smiting weapon, sears the flesh like fire and overloads the spirit with power.
Slashing. Swords, axes, and monsters' claws deal slashing damage.
Thunder. A concussive burst of sound, such as the effect of the thunderwave spell, deals thunder damage.
Could you use this feature with the trigger to Absorb Elements? You’ve got Catapult in your spellbook and now you can Trigger for reduction on Bludgeoning damage?
There are arguments on both side whether or not this feature applies to abilities like Protection from Energy, Protection from Poison, or the Investiture spells. Then other questions about whether you can change multiple damage types in a spell like Flame Strike has. So far there has been no clear direction on this so it would be best to ask your DM how they would like to play this feature.
Sadly this feature is not usable with Absorb Elements as you cannot even cast the spell unless you are hit with one of the listed damage types. So no that would work to get resistance on any damage other than acid, cold, fire, lightning, or thunder damage.
Are you disagreeing? The part you've highlighted is the exact part I'm referencing; it makes it clear that damage types and damage resistances are considered to be separate features. While a damage resistance might refer to a damage type that it protects you against, it doesn't have a damage type in the same way that a spell that actually deals that kind of damage does.
Put another way, while a fireball deals the damage type fire directly, what fire shield does is to provide fire resistance, which in turn reduces damage from fire damage type; the latter spell doesn't have a damage type as such, it has a resistance which then uses a damage type to define how it functions.
Granted the distinction is not super well defined, and hopefully Sage Advice or similar will clarify, but I don't think it's intended to work with resistances (or immunities, if there are any spells granting them, I forget). This is because bypassing a target's resistances to deal your normal amount of damage is very different to rendering yourself resistant (or immune) to potentially all of an enemy's attacks on a whim.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
“When you cast a wizard spell with a spell slot, you can temporarily replace its damage type with a type that appears in another spell in your spell- book, which magically alters the spell's formula for this casting only. The latter spell must be of the same level as the spell slot you expend.”
so it says you can “temporarily replace it’s damage type” with “a type” from another spell in your book. There’s language used here that seems to restrict the change to a single damage type from the additional spell. I wouldn’t personally allow multiple changes of a spell cast to be replaced with multiple types, but I would allow multiple damage types of the spell cast to all be changed to a single damage type from another spell.
I am disagreeing. The part I highlighted says that there are no rules about damage types, but that other features make use of the term. The reference even gives the example of resistance being a feature that uses the term itself. Frankly I don’t understand what’s unclear about it.
also...
FIRE SHIELD
4th-level evocation
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Self
Components: V, S, M (a bit of phosphorus or a firefly) Duration: 10 minutes
Thin and wispy flames wreathe your body for the duration, shedding bright light in a 10-foot radius and dim light for an additional 10 feet. You can end the spell early by using an action to dismiss it.
The flames provide you with a warm shield or a chill shield, as you choose. The warm shield grants you resistance to cold damage, and the chill shield grants you resistance to fire damage.
In addition, whenever a creature within 5 feet ofyou hits you with a melee attack, the shield erupts with flame. The attacker takes 2d8 fire damage from a warm shield, or 2d8 cold damage from a cold shield.
the spell refers to damage types multiple times in its description between damage rolls and resistances.
The individual damage types themselves don't have rules, but there grouped under the "damage type" rule itself; this is a departure from previous editions where each damage type had its own unique effects (necrotic reduced max HP, poison poisoned etc.).
Where the distinction is is that what you're seeking to swap is not the damage type, but the resistance; I forgot that Fire Shield also deals damage of its own, so you could absolutely swap that (as it is directly dealing a damage type), but what you're hoping to swap isn't just the damage type of the spell, but a damage resistance that it grants, which is its own rule. Put another way, a resistance is triggered by a damage type, it isn't granting one, it's also a step removed from the spell.
You've also again ignored my point about this feature interacting with damage resistances very likely not being intended; as I've already said twice now, changing a resistance is very different to changing the damage you deal. If you attack a creature and find it is resistant to fire, then switching damage type is something most Wizards will already do, the advantage an Order of Scribes Wizard has is that instead of having to cast a different spell you can cast the same spell (with any preferred rider effect(s) you want) while swapping the type, allowing you deal normal damage against that target (assuming you find something it isn't resistant to). It's an upgraded form of what most casters do anyway as it's easy for most Wizards to cover most of the major damage types, the advantage for Order of Scribes is in flexibility, and potentially saving a few spell choices depending how you pick them. Swapping resistances however means you can effectively double your hit-points no matter what damage type an enemy throws your way, and I cannot believe that that is intended, especially not if you can gain it simply by having a spell of the same level that deals that damage (e.g- trying to use Absorb Elements to resist force damage because you have Magic Missile).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Damage type isn’t a rule. There’s a paragraph about it stating that there aren’t damage type rules, but it’s a game term that other rules make use of. And again, the example specifies resistance as making use of “damage type”.
“You've also again ignored my point about this feature interacting with damage resistances very likely not being intended”
I ignored your “intent” part because we dont know the intent, but we do know what’s written. I tweeted out for validation to the powers that be, if you want you can retweet or make your own requests. Arguing intent at this point with no other clarification is more like saying” well this was my first impression, so no...”. You’re free to play however you like I suppose. You can restrict player features too if you’re a DM and you’re players are willing to go along with that I guess.
https://twitter.com/BobbyBa71151415/status/1375227127184777222
As for the feature being powerful if it allows resistance changing, yea, that’s the point of the tread. To point out the RAW and spread the knowledge/awareness of the features versatility that no one seems to have noticed.
“as I've already said twice now, changing a resistance is very different to changing the damage you deal.” the feature doesn’t make a distinction beyond spells about what you’re changing damage type for.
it specifies damage type which can generally impact:
• damage rolls
• static damage
• resistance.
• immunity (probably but I can’t actually find references...)
• vulnerability
“Some creatures and objects are exceedingly difficult or unusually easy to hurt with certain types of damage.
If a creature or an object has resistance to a damage type, damage of that type is halved against it. If a creature or an object has vulnerability to a damage type, damage of that type is doubled against it.
Resistance and then vulnerability are applied after all other modifiers to damage. For example, a creature has resistance to bludgeoning damage and is hit by an attack that deals 25 bludgeoning damage. The creature is also within a magical aura that reduces all damage by 5. The 25 damage is first reduced by 5 and then halved, so the creature takes 10 damage.
Multiple instances of resistance or vulnerability that affect the same damage type count as only one instance. For example, if a creature has resistance to fire damage as well as resistance to all nonmagical damage, the damage of a nonmagical fire is reduced by half against the creature, not reduced by three-quarters.”
Also, resistance is a little more than doubling your effectivene hitpoints because odd number damage rolls would be rounded down.
i can’t find a single rule reference for immunity in the DMG or the PHB even though the word is used in quite a few features. There’s talk in the MM about immunity being lumped in with resistance and vulnerability though...
For comparison purposes we have a similar feature in tashas that was released for the sorcerer. The metamagic option transmuted spell.
”TRANSMUTED SPELL
When you cast a spell that deals a type of damage from the following list, you can spend 1 sorcery point to change that damage type to one of the other listed types: acid, cold, fire, lightning, poi-son, thunder.”
as you can see, this feature has the ability to change damage types around. It’s limited to a specific list of damage types.
It’s also specifically limits the feature to spells that actually deal damage.
The problem is you're still thinking of it with a step removed; you're not changing the damage type of the spell itself (as would be the case with the spell dealing damage), you're changing the damage type of a resistance that the spell grants, these aren't the same thing. Again, I've said the distinction isn't very well defined, and a DM could rule it either way, but I'm not at all convinced that swapping resistances is intended behaviour.
Put another way, a fire damage spell directly deals fire damage, a fire resistance spell gives you fire resistance, which is its own rule that then applies the effect of halving fire damage, it's a step removed. It's also worth noting that the damage type rule specifically refers to dealing a damage type, and then other rules using that damage type, this strongly suggests that a spell's damage type is only the damage it deals.
I also wouldn't take a difference in wording with a similar effect in Tasha's Cauldron as hard evidence, as there are quite a few examples of inconsistency in the book (just as there are in most of the books), with the way damage type is worded it is arguably only reinforcing that the damage must be dealt.
Swapping damage resistances is an interesting possibility, but it's also a very, very exploitable one, and I don't think it's intended at all.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I’m not thinking about it in a way that removes a step. You’re creating/including a step that isn’t applicable. I know that dealing damage and reducing damage are different things.
like I keep saying, the feature in no way limits itself to damage dealt, regardless of assumption about intent.
changing the damage type specified in a spell, regardless of what game feature is making use of that damage type, is exactly what the language describes.
the variations between abilities and features in the game that do similar things is on purpose. This is an exclusion based game. If you add or remove a single word from otherwise identical features, it can and usually does drastically change how those features work.
I’m not seeing the suggestive connections about what you’re saying, only strong assumptions limiting the feature beyond what is written.
people do make mistakes though, perhaps spreading awareness of this will bring errata to change it or approval about intentions.
I wonder what the difference between using a feature effectively and exploitation might be. It’s not like the feature still wouldn’t coast resources like slots and concentration. Even gaining immunity usually wouldn’t be as powerful as a regular wall of force or other strong spells.
As a bit of a more personal question, how often to you wait for a tweet or errata to play new features with different interpretations? Perhaps if a player brings it up? Are there any you can remember not being sure about that ended up getting changed or supported? The psi warrior bonus damage feature not interacting with critical hits was one for me that I wasn’t expecting. Since it’s counted as a separate instance of damage it has a ripple effect.
- It causes a second concentration save.
-The bonus roll can also gain hexblade curse damage boost.
I think I'm still not really explaining very well; the problem as I see it is that you're not just trying to swap a damage type, you're trying to change a damage resistance (or potentially an immunity), which is its own specific rule and not what the Awakened Spellbook feature enables you to do.
I think you've missed one of the points I was making there, but while the sorcerer metamagic has the word "deal" in it, so does the actual section on Damage Type, I'm pretty sure the word as presented in the metamagic is redundant.
Actually there are a few resistance spells that don't require concentration; Fire Shield which I've already mentioned is one of them.
The most exploitable spell I've found so far is using Mind Blank which grants psychic damage immunity (along with immunity to being charmed or mind read/altered, immune even to Wish). While it's an 8th level spell it only requires a single action and lasts 24 hours without concentration, and you'd only need to know another 8th level spell with the damage type you really want to be immune to, so for one 8th level slot you could be immune to the main (or even only) damage type an enemy (or group of enemies) can deal once you know what you're up against.
I could have sworn there was a much lower level spell granting immunity to poison damage but either it's not in the Wizard list or not among the spells I have unlocked on D&D Beyond, but if I haven't just imagined it then it's possible a Wizard could get ahold of it to do the same thing at a lower level.
I'm a bit unclear on what happens for a spell like Stoneskin which grants multiple resistances, i.e- can you swap for any three you want? The wording on Awakened seems like no (as it refers to the spell's type as a singular).
I think not at all; my groups tend to play quite fast and loose with a lot of homebrew/house-rules, which is probably why I care so much about what RAW is on here 😂
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Ok so I think I’m beginning to understand your interpretation... so you’re reading of the following description prioritizes the first sentence about dealing the damage in a way that somehow restricts the second sentence. Is it because it’s the first sentence? Would your interpretation change if the sentences were swapped?
DAMAGE TYPES
Different attacks, damaging spells, and other harmful effects deal different types of damage.Damage types · have no rules of their own, but other rules, such as damage resistance, rely on the types.DAMAGE TYPES
I guess what I’m asking is, why would the first sentence prevent the second sentence from also being true?
DAMAGE TYPES
Damage types · have no rules of their own, but other rules, such as damage resistance, rely on the types. Different attacks, damaging spells, and other harmful effects deal different types of damage.
as for the lower level spells with immunity, I think you may have been thinking of the shitty elemental spells that were released that no one uses. The spells Investiture of Fire and perhaps the other spells too. Yea I think they would be boosted immensely by this feature, but I don’t think they would be overpowered. The entire idea that a wizard can be more powerful IF they know about their foe is true regardless of a class or subclass choice in my opinion. Also that information being given out is entirely in the DMs hands.
It's not really the ordering I think, it's just that resistance and immunity are their own rules, and that's the part that you're actually trying to change. While the wording is super inconsistent (some things grant "fire resistance", others grant "resistance to fire damage" or even say damage type explicitly), even if you're thinking in terms of the logic of just changing the damage type , you're also changing the resistance or immunity itself, but the feature doesn't say you can so the issue is, can you override other rules through this?
While Wizards can absolutely (by design) cheese an enemy whose weaknesses/strengths they know in advance, the problem with using this feature is that it allows you do it during a fight with an enemy you literally just met. The 6th level Investitures's and 8th level Mind Blank both only require an action to cast, at which point you can become immune to all or most damage the enemy does with no drawbacks (unlike Resilient Sphere).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
It does have drawbacks. You spend a spell slot first which is loss. You spend concentration, which is another limitation. A wizard being immune to a type damage AND having to concentrate on that effect is much less impactful than you’re making it out to be. Best case scenario you have immunity to a damage type for probably one battle, probably on the first turn of battle since it takes an action to set up. A wizard concentrating on that defensive spell that affects only them is probably a bad use of the mechanic, especially at that level with that high of a spell slot. Hell, spending a 6th level slot as an action to prevent a wizard from taking a specific kind of damage sounds remarkably similar to trying to heal in battle before damage is done, and healing is usually horrible in combat. I think perhaps you’re comparing the level of impact to what would happen if a player was deeply knowledgeable about the game mechanics, and uses the versatility to an incredibly high degree of accuracy when guessing effective damage type. Worst case scenario, you choose the wrong damage type and it’s completely ineffective, and you’ve wasted your action and a spell slot. There’s even DMs out there who would change the damage type to monster is working with on the fly to “keep the encounter challenging” which would invalidate the feature anyways.
in the case of a dragon, the wizard would probably have to choose between slashing,piercing, bludgeoning, or some type of elemental damage type. The breath is obviously dangerous and easy to predict, but the melee attacks would still shred that same wizard.
pertaining to the apprehension about being able to change damage types for different features descriptions, I guess I follow a particular line of logic. All damage references in the game refer to damage type, even if they do so using different description or non standardized language. There is no type less damage in DND 5e. So with that, any reference to damage ranging from dealing it or taking it, inherently uses damage types. When I read the feature, it specifies changing damage type with no regard to individual rules or instances beyond it being required to be in a spell.