There have been a few posts saying that just because you play a gem-dragonborn, doesn't mean you can be a gem draconic sorcerer. Species <> Subclass.
As a draconic sorcerer, your draconic bloodline directly informs your subclass. In Fizbans (which IS compatible with 2024), you can roll up a gem dragonborn.
So yes, you should be able to play a force(amethyst), radiant(crystal), psychic(emerald), thunder(sapphire), or necrotic(topaz), draconic sorcerer.
I don’t understand this logic. In the first sentence, you recognize that a species and a subclass are not the same thing. Then you try to argue that because a certain species exists, a certain subclass also exists. It’s self-contradictory. They aren’t the same. And the idea that it informs your subclass is wrong. It can, yes, but it doesn’t have to. You can play a blue Dragonborn who’s a gold dragon sorcerer. That’s RAW. What you can’t do is homebrew a subclass and assume anyone else will be ok with it, or “should” be ok with it. If you are and you’re the DM, that’s great, no one here will tell you you’re having fun the wrong way. But don’t expect others to agree to it in their game.
There have been a few posts saying that just because you play a gem-dragonborn, doesn't mean you can be a gem draconic sorcerer. Species <> Subclass.
As a draconic sorcerer, your draconic bloodline directly informs your subclass. In Fizbans (which IS compatible with 2024), you can roll up a gem dragonborn.
So yes, you should be able to play a force(amethyst), radiant(crystal), psychic(emerald), thunder(sapphire), or necrotic(topaz), draconic sorcerer.
You are getting "what the rules are" and "what I think the rules should be" mixed up.
Your post started out with "The answer is probably no, but I'm hopeful", but you sound like you've actually decided that the answer is yes and you're going to ignore anyone telling you otherwise.
There have been a few posts saying that just because you play a gem-dragonborn, doesn't mean you can be a gem draconic sorcerer. Species <> Subclass.
As a draconic sorcerer, your draconic bloodline directly informs your subclass. In Fizbans (which IS compatible with 2024), you can roll up a gem dragonborn.
So yes, you should be able to play a force(amethyst), radiant(crystal), psychic(emerald), thunder(sapphire), or necrotic(topaz), draconic sorcerer.
Unless you can point to either
An option in any official book that describes a gem dragon sorcerer or
A rule in any dragonborn species or any version of draconic sorcerer that says "if you are playing a gem dragonborn you can have gem dragon options for draconic sorcerer"
You are factually incorrect in this conclusions.
There is no gem dragon option for draconic sorcery There is no rule that says if you take gem dragonborn species, this changes your draconic ancestry. The answer to your question is no and it seems a bit odd to try and argue otherwise given everything everyone has explained.
I think other replies have answered your questions thoroughly. Most of those things don't stack, for specific reasons, and some of those things aren't possible at all.
I'm still guessing that its "pick the single best bonus, not all of them", but I don't know if thats cannon.
There isn't a general rule like this, however.
They could have made a "no more than one attribute's bonus per damage roll" rule. Or even a "no more than one attibute's bonus per skill check / attack roll" rule." Either of those would have fit fine alongside "no stacking advantage" and other general rules.
But they didn't. Probably because they wanted some build combos, if you could find them, to stack. Helps make some players feel clever (some of that "ivory tower game design" that Monte Cook talked about).
I think that, had they put a general rule like that in, it would have saved them lots of design trouble (and word count) in the spells and the class/subclass features. The game would probably be easier to play, and they could have called out clear, special exceptions when they wanted stacking to be possible. They didn't do this; I don't think that makes them bad designers; they just have a different design ethos than me :)
Your species doesn't change what subclass options are available. Those options are decided by the book contents. No official book, not even the one dedicated to 'everything dragon' lists these for dragon subclasses.
Fizbans Treasury of dragons. Page 11.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
When faced with an issue, most people would rather be negative than find a solution.
Your species doesn't change what subclass options are available. Those options are decided by the book contents. No official book, not even the one dedicated to 'everything dragon' lists these for dragon subclasses.
Fizbans Treasury of dragons. Page 11.
Again, you're conflating two separate features that do not have any mechanical interaction. If you're a Gem Dragonborn then for the purposes of your Gem Dragonborn features you reference the appropriate damage type. Note that just beyond that part of the book you have two subclasses with explicit dragon powers, and each only gives fire, cold, lightning, acid, and poison as the damage types you can choose from. One would think if Gem Dragon types were supposed to be considered permanently in the mix for dragon features, they would be explicitly listed in the two subclasses from the same book.
Your species doesn't change what subclass options are available. Those options are decided by the book contents. No official book, not even the one dedicated to 'everything dragon' lists these for dragon subclasses.
Fizbans Treasury of dragons. Page 11.
Yes, I have the book and nothing on that page states you get alternative Dragon Subclass options.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Okay, this is getting way out of hand, and way off script. Just to put this in context, there have been 2 topics on this thread.
1) Me asking what damage bonuses can stack up. Answer was given. Result was kinda 50/50, so done, sorted, finished. Nil Problemski.
2) My statement "I still think amethyst draconic sorcerer might work, but its only adding CHA once on the Eldritch Blast spell, not once for each individual beam".
I don’t understand this logic. In the first sentence, you recognize that a species and a subclass are not the same thing. Then you try to argue that because a certain species exists, a certain subclass also exists. It’s self-contradictory. They aren’t the same.
And the idea that it informs your subclass is wrong. It can, yes, but it doesn’t have to. You can play a blue Dragonborn who’s a gold dragon sorcerer. That’s RAW.
What you can’t do is homebrew a subclass and assume anyone else will be ok with it, or “should” be ok with it. If you are and you’re the DM, that’s great, no one here will tell you you’re having fun the wrong way. But don’t expect others to agree to it in their game.
You are getting "what the rules are" and "what I think the rules should be" mixed up.
Your post started out with "The answer is probably no, but I'm hopeful", but you sound like you've actually decided that the answer is yes and you're going to ignore anyone telling you otherwise.
pronouns: he/she/they
Unless you can point to either
or
You are factually incorrect in this conclusions.
There is no gem dragon option for draconic sorcery
There is no rule that says if you take gem dragonborn species, this changes your draconic ancestry.
The answer to your question is no and it seems a bit odd to try and argue otherwise given everything everyone has explained.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Not only that, but the old Sage Advice even had a note explicitly saying that they don't have to be the same.
pronouns: he/she/they
I think other replies have answered your questions thoroughly. Most of those things don't stack, for specific reasons, and some of those things aren't possible at all.
There isn't a general rule like this, however.
They could have made a "no more than one attribute's bonus per damage roll" rule. Or even a "no more than one attibute's bonus per skill check / attack roll" rule." Either of those would have fit fine alongside "no stacking advantage" and other general rules.
But they didn't. Probably because they wanted some build combos, if you could find them, to stack. Helps make some players feel clever (some of that "ivory tower game design" that Monte Cook talked about).
I think that, had they put a general rule like that in, it would have saved them lots of design trouble (and word count) in the spells and the class/subclass features. The game would probably be easier to play, and they could have called out clear, special exceptions when they wanted stacking to be possible. They didn't do this; I don't think that makes them bad designers; they just have a different design ethos than me :)
Fizbans Treasury of dragons. Page 11.
When faced with an issue, most people would rather be negative than find a solution.
Again, you're conflating two separate features that do not have any mechanical interaction. If you're a Gem Dragonborn then for the purposes of your Gem Dragonborn features you reference the appropriate damage type. Note that just beyond that part of the book you have two subclasses with explicit dragon powers, and each only gives fire, cold, lightning, acid, and poison as the damage types you can choose from. One would think if Gem Dragon types were supposed to be considered permanently in the mix for dragon features, they would be explicitly listed in the two subclasses from the same book.
Yes, I have the book and nothing on that page states you get alternative Dragon Subclass options.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Okay, this is getting way out of hand, and way off script. Just to put this in context, there have been 2 topics on this thread.
1) Me asking what damage bonuses can stack up. Answer was given. Result was kinda 50/50, so done, sorted, finished. Nil Problemski.
2) My statement "I still think amethyst draconic sorcerer might work, but its only adding CHA once on the Eldritch Blast spell, not once for each individual beam".
[REDACTED]
When faced with an issue, most people would rather be negative than find a solution.