What I'm not sure about is if I understand your position entirely. Are you taking the [that deals damage of the type associated with your draconic ancestry] part of "when you cast a spell that deals damage of the type associated with your draconic ancestry" to really mean "When you roll damage for a spell that deals damage of the type associated with your draconic ancestry"? That's not a position I would agree with (and I mean if that were really the case, why wouldn't they have just written that to begin with, yeah?), but it is a valid interpretation.
That's where I'm at. And I also think they did write that to begin with because I am suggesting the two statements are synonymous with the chosen wording being more concise.
What I'm not sure about is if I understand your position entirely. Are you taking the [that deals damage of the type associated with your draconic ancestry] part of "when you cast a spell that deals damage of the type associated with your draconic ancestry" to really mean "When you roll damage for a spell that deals damage of the type associated with your draconic ancestry"? That's not a position I would agree with (and I mean if that were really the case, why wouldn't they have just written that to begin with, yeah?), but it is a valid interpretation.
That's where I'm at. And I also think they did write that to begin with because I am suggesting the two statements are synonymous with the chosen wording being more concise.
Alright, we're on the same page now! I do not agree with that position, but it is absolutely a valid position to hold! 😉
In that case, the OP should not have lost their Sorcery Point, as the condition to even think about spending it (damage actually rolled/dealt) did not occur.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I would rule and would argue that the RAW is that while most metamagic would still result in the point being spent, this one specifically requires the damage to be done, meaning the point would not be spent. I would not overly object if a DM were to decide that the point was spent and resistance was gained. I would be substantially more upset if the DM decided the point was spent and resistance was not gained.
I wouldn’t have taken the point. Elemental affinity says when you cast a spell that deals damage, you can add your charisma to a damage roll. Being able to choose to add your charisma to a damage roll can only happen at the time you’ve rolled damage.
the ability to spend a point to gain resistance to that damage type is said to happen “at the same time”, so you would only be able to spend the point if your spell successfully got to the point to roll damage. Counterspell ends a cancels a spell immediately during the process of attempting to cast a spell. While the spell slot would still be lost, the countered spell never got to the damage roll.
no point spent.
Edit: yea I should have read the rest of the thread...
Hey thanks everyone who commented and added to this thread...
...you have all provided me some very useful insight and understanding that I will share with my DM (along with pointing him at this thread for his own interest and judgement)... I of course will abide by whatever decision ongoing the DM decides for this scenario, however I will be promoting the view and argument that I should not also lose the benefit of the resistance via SP from a Counterspell, as most eloquently expressed and argued by Sigred ...
A lot of nuance in this one so thanks again.
A grateful nzShepard :)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That's where I'm at. And I also think they did write that to begin with because I am suggesting the two statements are synonymous with the chosen wording being more concise.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Alright, we're on the same page now! I do not agree with that position, but it is absolutely a valid position to hold! 😉
In that case, the OP should not have lost their Sorcery Point, as the condition to even think about spending it (damage actually rolled/dealt) did not occur.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I would rule and would argue that the RAW is that while most metamagic would still result in the point being spent, this one specifically requires the damage to be done, meaning the point would not be spent. I would not overly object if a DM were to decide that the point was spent and resistance was gained. I would be substantially more upset if the DM decided the point was spent and resistance was not gained.
But we do all agree he shouldn't lose the point and gain nothing?
Yes. I read the resistance as being a consequence of spending the sorcery point, not on the spell dealing damage (or doing anything at all).
I wouldn’t have taken the point. Elemental affinity says when you cast a spell that deals damage, you can add your charisma to a damage roll. Being able to choose to add your charisma to a damage roll can only happen at the time you’ve rolled damage.
the ability to spend a point to gain resistance to that damage type is said to happen “at the same time”, so you would only be able to spend the point if your spell successfully got to the point to roll damage. Counterspell ends a cancels a spell immediately during the process of attempting to cast a spell. While the spell slot would still be lost, the countered spell never got to the damage roll.
no point spent.
Edit: yea I should have read the rest of the thread...
Hey thanks everyone who commented and added to this thread...
...you have all provided me some very useful insight and understanding that I will share with my DM (along with pointing him at this thread for his own interest and judgement)... I of course will abide by whatever decision ongoing the DM decides for this scenario, however I will be promoting the view and argument that I should not also lose the benefit of the resistance via SP from a Counterspell, as most eloquently expressed and argued by Sigred ...
A lot of nuance in this one so thanks again.
A grateful nzShepard :)