Hey guys, I've got a player that really digs the Transmuted Spell Metamagic option and wants to use it with some optional spells from TCE. Specifically, utilizing Flame Blade into a different damage type. Based on RAW, Transmuted Spell says "When you cast a spell that deals a type of damage..." Now, I don't want to just tell the player that they can't do that, since it's a pretty awesome way to run it, but here's the confusion:
1. Once the spell is cast, should the Transmuted Spell effect affect the blade itself for the duration
or
2. Every time they attack with the blade, they need to use a sorcery point to make the change (Flame Blade: You can use your action to make a melee spell attack with the fiery blade...")
or
3. Don't allow them to utilize this metamagic effect for this spell (what I'd consider the unfun option, but it is what it is)
I look forward to hearing what you guys have to say about it, and feel free to include any insight into your decision. Thanks in advance for the input!!
You only cast the spell once. So I'd say they only need to spend the points once, and it lasts for the duration. And whatever they've changed it to, that's the damage they have to stick with for the duration of the spell, for good or bad.
And whatever you decide, stick with it for other spells. If they want to change cloudkill to doing ice damage, then you should use the same ruling as you do for this situation.
RAW, I’d say flame blade doesn’t qualify for Transmute Spell, because it doesn’t deal damage; it grants an action that deals damage. But, Sage Advice says dragon’s breath isn’t twinnable, so Crawford may disagree 🙄
RAI, I’d say option 1, which is also how I’d rule at my table.
I'd like to thank everyone that posted and/or voted on this subject matter. It make me feel better to allow this to happen and give confidence to my player, in case they try to run a similar build with another DM.
But, Sage Advice says dragon’s breath isn’t twinnable, so Crawford may disagree 🙄
Twinned spell: To be eligible, a spell must be incapable of targeting more than one creature at the spell’s current level.
Dragon's Breath is a cone, it doesn't target a single creature.
Dragon's breath is a touch spell, not a cone. The text begins "You touch one willing creature..." The real difference of opinion between Jeremy Crawford and people who are actually capable of reading comprehension comes later, and I'm certainly not going to turn this thread into Yet Another Debate on the Topic™.
RAW, I’d say flame blade doesn’t qualify for Transmute Spell, because it doesn’t deal damage; it grants an action that deals damage. But, Sage Advice says dragon’s breath isn’t twinnable, so Crawford may disagree 🙄
RAI, I’d say option 1, which is also how I’d rule at my table.
I'll point out that flame blade "evokes" a blade into your hand - you do get a bonus action to manifest the blade later, but the immediate result of the spell is the blade coming into existence.
That means this falls under the question of, "what is a spell?". There's no consistent answer in the RAW, but I've asked something like it on this very forum, and the consensus response was as consistent as possible with relevant raw (namely, Goodberry berries must be a spell and Conjure Woodland Beings's minions must not be spells): when a spell manifests an object, that object is a spell, but when a spell manifests a creature, that creature is not a spell.
So, because flame blade manifests an object, that object is the spell you cast, and any damage it deals is the damage your spell is dealing. So transmuted spell should work fine.
RAW, I’d say flame blade doesn’t qualify for Transmute Spell, because it doesn’t deal damage; it grants an action that deals damage. But, Sage Advice says dragon’s breath isn’t twinnable, so Crawford may disagree 🙄
RAI, I’d say option 1, which is also how I’d rule at my table.
I'll point out that flame blade "evokes" a blade into your hand - you do get a bonus action to manifest the blade later, but the immediate result of the spell is the blade coming into existence.
That means this falls under the question of, "what is a spell?". There's no consistent answer in the RAW, but I've asked something like it on this very forum, and the consensus response was as consistent as possible with relevant raw (namely, Goodberry berries must be a spell and Conjure Woodland Beings's minions must not be spells): when a spell manifests an object, that object is a spell, but when a spell manifests a creature, that creature is not a spell.
So, because flame blade manifests an object, that object is the spell you cast, and any damage it deals is the damage your spell is dealing. So transmuted spell should work fine.
Sorry, but that’s pretty incoherent. A spell is a spell. A spell’s effect is a spell’s effect. “What is a spell” isn’t an interesting question, because it has an extremely obvious and clear answer. The blade itself is not a spell, because it is not one of the several hundred things printed across several books that are called spells; the spell is what produced the blade. Don’t try to make things way more complicated than they are.
I know this whole thing has been dead for a while, and we may have had reworks of the spell since the debate, however I would like to point out that the the spell does state that you make a melee spell attack where as if we compare this to shadow blade it is a melee attack. I would argue that since the "blade" in flame blade is referenced as a spell attack then the it is the spell it's self dealing the damage regardless of if it gives a different action to choose from. Personally I think it would fit within the rules to be able to transmute the spell upon casting but must either drop concentration on it or wait for the spell's full duration before transmuting it again.
I know this whole thing has been dead for a while, and we may have had reworks of the spell since the debate, however I would like to point out that the the spell does state that you make a melee spell attack where as if we compare this to shadow blade it is a melee attack. I would argue that since the "blade" in flame blade is referenced as a spell attack then the it is the spell it's self dealing the damage regardless of if it gives a different action to choose from. Personally I think it would fit within the rules to be able to transmute the spell upon casting but must either drop concentration on it or wait for the spell's full duration before transmuting it again.
Deader threads get necro'd all the time so dont worry about it. That was worded weirdly but I think I agree with you.
Basically, you are saying that flame blades attack is to deal damage, so it us a viable target for transmute spell and that the metamagic works like option 1. Right?
The spell lists a set damage of 3d6 fire. I see no reason not to let transmute make it any of the other types (acid, cold, lightning, thunder, poison), in addition to fire.
Question isn’t whether or not it does damage it’s the question of does the transmutation affect the spell for 10 minutes or for the one action of melee combat. I personally feel that it affects the spell for 10 minutes not just one action which would allow you to use your transmuted flame blade. That is now a lightning blade for a full 10 minutes or a whole battle of combat realistically. IMO
I'd say definitely one Metamagic use for the entire duration.
Metamagic is sorcerer's "thing" . They have very few spells, so metamagic is what makes them strong and more importantly interesting. They also get very limited sorcery points and only a couple of metamagic options too.
So if they first choose transmute as their option and then spend their sorcery points to change the dmg type of a spell, I'd rule in their favor in almost all cases that don't directly break the entire game (which is very unlikely)
Besides. Transmute's main intended purpose, if I understand correctly, is to ignore resistances and exploit vulnerabilities. So if the player uses it to ignore resistances and exploit vulnerabilities, they are doing exactly what it's for. 😄
I think this gets into similar territory as some of the weird interactions with healing spells and certain Cleric/Druid abilities, where people start arguing about whether a spell counts because it heals/deals damage eventually rather than on the same turn/action.
In terms of Rules As Written the question mark is around whether this spell itself deals fire damage; if you go strictly by RAW then there's an argument that no fire damage occurs as part of casting the spell so the Metamagic may not apply, this is similar to how features like Alchemical Savant (Artificer) and Elemental Affinity (Draconic Sorcerer) work. This would mean that the strictest possible argument may be that you can't transmute it at all, but where's the fun in that for your players? A lot of people tweak how Alchemical Savant/Elemental Affinity work in practice to make them more useful/accessible so you may wish to do the same for Transmuted Spell.
The language is also loose enough that you can absolutely argue that you're casting a spell that does do fire damage, and since the Metamagic doesn't require any damage to actually be happening then it's okay for that damage to come later (unlike RAW Alchemical Savant/Elemental Affinity which want damage dice to be rolling). This is definitely how I'd run it personally, as in balance terms there's nothing overpowered about swapping elemental damage types, and flame blade is generally considered a little weak, especially when compared to the likes of shadow blade (for this reason I made a homebrew chromatic blade alternative to use instead).
Rules as Intended is interesting at the moment because we've seen in the latest OneD&D playtest that they're changing how Life Cleric functions to reflect the original intention of its current RAW, which is to only apply to effects in the same turn. This does complicate the comparison with transmuted spell as it might mean it would only change type for one round, but that'd be another weird way to actually run it from a gameplay perspective.
I voted for one use changes the type for the duration, because that's how I'd personally interpret the rule, but I do think it's going somewhat by intention rather than rules as written which isn't as clear as it could be (but is open enough it's fine IMO).
It's only not twin-able because dragon's breath can effect more than one target when you breath fire since it is an AOE spell. Thus they get wonky with the rules so as to keep you from twinning it.... which is odd because of all the other wild things they're absolutely fine with.
It's only not twin-able because dragon's breath can effect more than one target when you breath fire since it is an AOE spell. Thus they get wonky with the rules so as to keep you from twinning it.... which is odd because of all the other wild things they're absolutely fine with.
Not true. Dragon breath does not breathe fires and is NOT an AoE spell. It affects allies, granting them an breath AoE attack. This is an important distintion.
RAW, you can twin dragon breath.
Note the problem with Sage Advice is that some are "official" and others are not. The Sage Advice that Dragon Breath is not twinnable is part of the un-official set.
Hey guys, I've got a player that really digs the Transmuted Spell Metamagic option and wants to use it with some optional spells from TCE. Specifically, utilizing Flame Blade into a different damage type. Based on RAW, Transmuted Spell says "When you cast a spell that deals a type of damage..." Now, I don't want to just tell the player that they can't do that, since it's a pretty awesome way to run it, but here's the confusion:
1. Once the spell is cast, should the Transmuted Spell effect affect the blade itself for the duration
or
2. Every time they attack with the blade, they need to use a sorcery point to make the change (Flame Blade: You can use your action to make a melee spell attack with the fiery blade...")
or
3. Don't allow them to utilize this metamagic effect for this spell (what I'd consider the unfun option, but it is what it is)
I look forward to hearing what you guys have to say about it, and feel free to include any insight into your decision. Thanks in advance for the input!!
You only cast the spell once. So I'd say they only need to spend the points once, and it lasts for the duration. And whatever they've changed it to, that's the damage they have to stick with for the duration of the spell, for good or bad.
And whatever you decide, stick with it for other spells. If they want to change cloudkill to doing ice damage, then you should use the same ruling as you do for this situation.
RAW, I’d say flame blade doesn’t qualify for Transmute Spell, because it doesn’t deal damage; it grants an action that deals damage. But, Sage Advice says dragon’s breath isn’t twinnable, so Crawford may disagree 🙄
RAI, I’d say option 1, which is also how I’d rule at my table.
Metamagic weirdness Saga mentioned aside. Option 1.
I'd like to thank everyone that posted and/or voted on this subject matter. It make me feel better to allow this to happen and give confidence to my player, in case they try to run a similar build with another DM.
Twinned spell: To be eligible, a spell must be incapable of targeting more than one creature at the spell’s current level.
Dragon's Breath is a cone, it doesn't target a single creature.
Dragon's breath is a touch spell, not a cone. The text begins "You touch one willing creature..." The real difference of opinion between Jeremy Crawford and people who are actually capable of reading comprehension comes later, and I'm certainly not going to turn this thread into Yet Another Debate on the Topic™.
I'll point out that flame blade "evokes" a blade into your hand - you do get a bonus action to manifest the blade later, but the immediate result of the spell is the blade coming into existence.
That means this falls under the question of, "what is a spell?". There's no consistent answer in the RAW, but I've asked something like it on this very forum, and the consensus response was as consistent as possible with relevant raw (namely, Goodberry berries must be a spell and Conjure Woodland Beings's minions must not be spells): when a spell manifests an object, that object is a spell, but when a spell manifests a creature, that creature is not a spell.
So, because flame blade manifests an object, that object is the spell you cast, and any damage it deals is the damage your spell is dealing. So transmuted spell should work fine.
Sorry, but that’s pretty incoherent. A spell is a spell. A spell’s effect is a spell’s effect. “What is a spell” isn’t an interesting question, because it has an extremely obvious and clear answer. The blade itself is not a spell, because it is not one of the several hundred things printed across several books that are called spells; the spell is what produced the blade. Don’t try to make things way more complicated than they are.
Re: Object/Creature
The distinction should be "creates" versus "conjures".
Goodberry and Flame Blade produce their effect from nothing. Conjure Woodland Beings summons an existing creature from some "other" place.
One is formed from magic, while the other is merely relocated/controlled by magic.
I know this whole thing has been dead for a while, and we may have had reworks of the spell since the debate, however I would like to point out that the the spell does state that you make a melee spell attack where as if we compare this to shadow blade it is a melee attack. I would argue that since the "blade" in flame blade is referenced as a spell attack then the it is the spell it's self dealing the damage regardless of if it gives a different action to choose from. Personally I think it would fit within the rules to be able to transmute the spell upon casting but must either drop concentration on it or wait for the spell's full duration before transmuting it again.
Deader threads get necro'd all the time so dont worry about it. That was worded weirdly but I think I agree with you.
Basically, you are saying that flame blades attack is to deal damage, so it us a viable target for transmute spell and that the metamagic works like option 1. Right?
yea essentially.
The spell lists a set damage of 3d6 fire. I see no reason not to let transmute make it any of the other types (acid, cold, lightning, thunder, poison), in addition to fire.
Question isn’t whether or not it does damage it’s the question of does the transmutation affect the spell for 10 minutes or for the one action of melee combat. I personally feel that it affects the spell for 10 minutes not just one action which would allow you to use your transmuted flame blade. That is now a lightning blade for a full 10 minutes or a whole battle of combat realistically. IMO
I'd say definitely one Metamagic use for the entire duration.
Metamagic is sorcerer's "thing" . They have very few spells, so metamagic is what makes them strong and more importantly interesting. They also get very limited sorcery points and only a couple of metamagic options too.
So if they first choose transmute as their option and then spend their sorcery points to change the dmg type of a spell, I'd rule in their favor in almost all cases that don't directly break the entire game (which is very unlikely)
Besides. Transmute's main intended purpose, if I understand correctly, is to ignore resistances and exploit vulnerabilities. So if the player uses it to ignore resistances and exploit vulnerabilities, they are doing exactly what it's for. 😄
Finland GMT/UTC +2
I think this gets into similar territory as some of the weird interactions with healing spells and certain Cleric/Druid abilities, where people start arguing about whether a spell counts because it heals/deals damage eventually rather than on the same turn/action.
In terms of Rules As Written the question mark is around whether this spell itself deals fire damage; if you go strictly by RAW then there's an argument that no fire damage occurs as part of casting the spell so the Metamagic may not apply, this is similar to how features like Alchemical Savant (Artificer) and Elemental Affinity (Draconic Sorcerer) work. This would mean that the strictest possible argument may be that you can't transmute it at all, but where's the fun in that for your players? A lot of people tweak how Alchemical Savant/Elemental Affinity work in practice to make them more useful/accessible so you may wish to do the same for Transmuted Spell.
The language is also loose enough that you can absolutely argue that you're casting a spell that does do fire damage, and since the Metamagic doesn't require any damage to actually be happening then it's okay for that damage to come later (unlike RAW Alchemical Savant/Elemental Affinity which want damage dice to be rolling). This is definitely how I'd run it personally, as in balance terms there's nothing overpowered about swapping elemental damage types, and flame blade is generally considered a little weak, especially when compared to the likes of shadow blade (for this reason I made a homebrew chromatic blade alternative to use instead).
Rules as Intended is interesting at the moment because we've seen in the latest OneD&D playtest that they're changing how Life Cleric functions to reflect the original intention of its current RAW, which is to only apply to effects in the same turn. This does complicate the comparison with transmuted spell as it might mean it would only change type for one round, but that'd be another weird way to actually run it from a gameplay perspective.
I voted for one use changes the type for the duration, because that's how I'd personally interpret the rule, but I do think it's going somewhat by intention rather than rules as written which isn't as clear as it could be (but is open enough it's fine IMO).
Characters: Bullette, Chortle, Dracarys Noir, Edward Merryspell, Habard Ashery, Legion, Peregrine
My Homebrew: Feats | Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Races
Guides: Creating Sub-Races Using Trait Options
WIP (feedback needed): Blood Mage, Chromatic Sorcerers, Summoner, Trickster Domain, Unlucky, Way of the Daoist (Drunken Master), Weapon Smith
Please don't reply to my posts unless you've read what they actually say.
It's only not twin-able because dragon's breath can effect more than one target when you breath fire since it is an AOE spell. Thus they get wonky with the rules so as to keep you from twinning it.... which is odd because of all the other wild things they're absolutely fine with.
Not true. Dragon breath does not breathe fires and is NOT an AoE spell. It affects allies, granting them an breath AoE attack. This is an important distintion.
RAW, you can twin dragon breath.
Note the problem with Sage Advice is that some are "official" and others are not. The Sage Advice that Dragon Breath is not twinnable is part of the un-official set.