I have a character which is kind of complicated, but built basically to be the most đ„ FIRE + SWORD đ„ possible. Because of this, they have the [feat]elemental adept[feat] feat (fire).
I'm looking for confirmation on my calculations concerning which parts of this damage equation are halved due to fire resistance from spells being ignoredâdue to the featâand which parts are not halved. For reference, Matthew Colville has lready gone on to say the the spell Green-Flame Blade does not make the weapon attack made as part of the spell into magical damage, meaning that is it made as part of the spell, but is not included in the spell's effects.
Equation Contributors:
Weapon â Flame Tongue Rapier (NOT MAGICAL DAMAGE FROM A SPELL) 1d8 piercing damage + 5 piercing damage (DEX) 2d6 fire damage
Spell â Green-Flame Blade (MAGICAL DAMAGE FROM A SPELL) 1d8 fire damage 1d8 + 4 fire damage (CHA) to second target
Fighter Feature (1 level) â Fighting Style: Dueling(NOT MAGICAL DAMAGE FROM A SPELL) + 2 piercing damage
Sorcerer Feature (6 levels) â Elemental Affinity (MAGICAL DAMAGE FROM A SPELL.)
Starting at 6th level, when you cast a spell that deals damage of the type associated with your draconic ancestry, you can add your Charisma modifier to one damage roll of that spell.
+4 fire damage (CHA)
Warlock Feature (1 level) â Genie's Wrath (Efreeti) (NOT MAGICAL DAMAGE FROM A SPELL. THIS IS APPLIED TO THE ATTACK MADE BEFORE THE SPELL DEALS DAMAGE)
Once during each of your turns when you hit with an attack roll, you can deal extra damage to the target equal to your proficiency bonus.
+ 3 fire damage (PROF)
The final calculation condensed is this: 1d8+7 piercing damage + 1d8+4 fire damage (+ 1d8+4 fire damage to second target) + 2d6+3 fire damage. â = Piercing damage (resistance to fire damage does not half this damage) â = Fire damage from a spell (resistance to fire damage does not half this damage) â = Fire damage, not from a spell (resistance to fire damage DOES half this damage)
Not quite. Green-Flame-Blade does not deal damage to the target of the attack until 5th level. It scales like so:
1st - 0 to attack target - 4 (CHA) to second target
5th - 1d8 to attack target - 1d8+4 to second target
11th - 2d8 to attack target - 2d8+4 to second target
17 - 3d8 to attack target - 3d8+4 to second target
EDIT: While my statement was correct, my interpretation of your build was not. Your 6th level feature allows you to add your ability score modifier to one roll of the cantrip. Your build is correct at 6th level.
I'm curious why not go 7 Eldritch Knight for War Magic + Action Surge + an extra ASI for Elemental Affinity, or 7 Bladesinger for their special version of Extra Attack. Sure, you'd lose Elemental Affinity, but you'd be gaining extra rapier attacks that'll add more damage than you lose.
Also, if you pick Zariel Tiefling as your race, you'd get a free casting of Searing Smite and Branding Smite for even more enemy-burning fun and you'd also get a bit more mileage out of Elemental Affinity.
I have a character which is kind of complicated, but built basically to be the most đ„ FIRE + SWORD đ„ possible. Because of this, they have the [feat]elemental adept[feat] feat (fire).
I'm looking for confirmation on my calculations concerning which parts of this damage equation are halved due to fire resistance from spells being ignoredâdue to the featâand which parts are not halved. For reference, Matthew Colville has lready gone on to say the the spell Green-Flame Blade does not make the weapon attack made as part of the spell into magical damage, meaning that is it made as part of the spell, but is not included in the spell's effects.
Equation Contributors:
Weapon â Flame Tongue Rapier (NOT MAGICAL DAMAGE FROM A SPELL) 1d8 piercing damage + 5 piercing damage (DEX) 2d6 fire damage
Spell â Green-Flame Blade (MAGICAL DAMAGE FROM A SPELL) 1d8 fire damage 1d8 + 4 fire damage (CHA) to second target
Fighter Feature (1 level) â Fighting Style: Dueling(NOT MAGICAL DAMAGE FROM A SPELL) + 2 piercing damage
Sorcerer Feature (6 levels) â Elemental Affinity (MAGICAL DAMAGE FROM A SPELL.)
Starting at 6th level, when you cast a spell that deals damage of the type associated with your draconic ancestry, you can add your Charisma modifier to one damage roll of that spell.
+4 fire damage (CHA)
Warlock Feature (1 level) â Genie's Wrath (Efreeti) (NOT MAGICAL DAMAGE FROM A SPELL. THIS IS APPLIED TO THE ATTACK MADE BEFORE THE SPELL DEALS DAMAGE)
Once during each of your turns when you hit with an attack roll, you can deal extra damage to the target equal to your proficiency bonus.
+ 3 fire damage (PROF)
The final calculation condensed is this: 1d8+7 piercing damage + 1d8+4 fire damage (+ 1d8+4 fire damage to second target) + 2d6+3 fire damage. â = Piercing damage (resistance to fire damage does not half this damage) â = Fire damage from a spell (resistance to fire damage does not half this damage) â = Fire damage, not from a spell (resistance to fire damage DOES half this damage)
Does this look correct to all ya'll?
No. Here we go.
Weapon: 1d8 piercing + 2d6 fire + 5; the 5 can be piercing or fire, and you can pick each time you roll damage. All of this damage is magical, because it it is delivered by a magic weapon, but none of it is spell.
Dueling: This +2 is also fire or piercing, dynamically chosen.
Green-Flame Blade: 1d8 fire damage to primary target; 1d8 + 4 to secondary. All of this is magical fire damage, and all of it is spell.
Genie's Wrath: This is magical fire damage, but it is not spell damage.
Elemental Affinity: This is where things get strange. I detail the explanation below, but let's start with a tl;dr.
tl;dr We don't know how many times you roll GFB, which means we don't know if you have to choose which spell target to apply your CHA damage to.
Green-Flame Blade uses similar wording to how chain lightning targets, but radically different wording on the damage: the primary target takes extra damage, meaning it can crit, but the secondary target just takes damage from the spell - it isn't extra.
The logic by which "extra" damage crits but e.g. damage you take from a rider with a save attached isn't enshrined anywhere in the rules, but it's universally embraced by the community. Here's the Jeremy Crawford tweet explaining it.
Note that GFB does not state the damage happens sequentially - it just says the first target takes damage and so does the second (and it doesn't use the words first or second). We know for certain we have to resolve the damage sequentially due to Xanathar's, and the only sane order is the target you hit followed by the one you didn't, but that doesn't mean the damage rolls are sequential for the purposes of simultaneous damage forcing you to roll once.
That means we have a rules dilemma: the PHB tells us to roll damage once and Jeremy Crawford, in an unofficial tweet, suggests that we should roll twice, because only one of the damage rolls is called "extra". It's of no help applying specific vs general logic here - one of our two pieces of rules advice here isn't even a rule.
So there are two possible answers.
1d8 piercing + 2d6 + 1d8 + 3 fire + 7 fire or piercing to first target, 1d8 + 4 fire to second target
Option 1: You must choose one target to suffer an additional 4 fire; you can choose either the first target or the second. This also intrinsically means you roll the 1d8 fire twice: once for each target.
Option 2: You must roll your fire damage once - both targets take the same1d8 fire. This means both targets also take 4 fire.
This means if your initial attack roll is a critical hit, you need to track your dice: one of your d8s is for both targets, and the other is only for the first one.
I'm curious why not go 7 Eldritch Knight for War Magic + Action Surge + an extra ASI for Elemental Affinity, or 7 Bladesinger for their special version of Extra Attack. Sure, you'd lose Elemental Affinity, but you'd be gaining extra rapier attacks that'll add more damage than you lose.
Also, if you pick Zariel Tiefling as your race, you'd get a free casting of Searing Smite and Branding Smite for even more enemy-burning fun and you'd also get a bit more mileage out of Elemental Affinity.
Because with this build, I only want to focus on 1st level spells. Using flexible casting, I have 20 1st level spell slots for Shield, or Hellish Rebuke, and I can easily have up to 3 of those spell slots converted into 6 sorcerery points at a time to quicken cast the spell All over again. The build also has Seeking spell to decrease my chances of missing. The build as is, due to being a draconic sorcerer, has additional hit points, and an AC of 18 (easily 20 while wielding a shield, but I'm avoiding that until I can guarantee acquisition of a Ruby of the War Mage. Otherwise, I won't be able to cast shield or hellish rebuke).
I am a tiefling as well, but the vanilla brand, in order to an extra Hellish rebuke of 2nd level. I wanted to focus on the class not having to take time to cast and try to keep concentration on other spells. I considered both of those routes, of similar verisons of them in build already, but ultimately decided this combination was ideal for me.
I had overlooked that quindraco, but Green-Flame Blade states "Both damage rolls" in the last sentence, so I think it is fair to say this is an exception and you roll damage separately for each target.
Weapon: 1d8 piercing + 2d6 fire + 5; the 5 can be piercing or fire, and you can pick each time you roll damage. All of this damage is magical, because it it is delivered by a magic weapon, but none of it is spell.
Dueling: This +2 is also fire or piercing, dynamically chosen.
Green-Flame Blade: 1d8 fire damage to primary target; 1d8 + 4 to secondary. All of this is magical fire damage, and all of it is spell.
Genie's Wrath: This is magical fire damage, but it is not spell damage.
Elemental Affinity: This is where things get strange. I detail the explanation below, but let's start with a tl;dr.
tl;dr We don't know how many times you roll GFB, which means we don't know if you have to choose which spell target to apply your CHA damage to.
Green-Flame Blade uses similar wording to how chain lightning targets, but radically different wording on the damage: the primary target takes extra damage, meaning it can crit, but the secondary target just takes damage from the spell - it isn't extra.
The logic by which "extra" damage crits but e.g. damage you take from a rider with a save attached isn't enshrined anywhere in the rules, but it's universally embraced by the community. Here's the Jeremy Crawford tweet explaining it.
Note that GFB does not state the damage happens sequentially - it just says the first target takes damage and so does the second (and it doesn't use the words first or second). We know for certain we have to resolve the damage sequentially due to Xanathar's, and the only sane order is the target you hit followed by the one you didn't, but that doesn't mean the damage rolls are sequential for the purposes of simultaneous damage forcing you to roll once.
That means we have a rules dilemma: the PHB tells us to roll damage once and Jeremy Crawford, in an unofficial tweet, suggests that we should roll twice, because only one of the damage rolls is called "extra". It's of no help applying specific vs general logic here - one of our two pieces of rules advice here isn't even a rule.
So there are two possible answers.
1d8 piercing + 2d6 + 1d8 + 3 fire + 7 fire or piercing to first target, 1d8 + 4 fire to second target
Option 1: You must choose one target to suffer an additional 4 fire; you can choose either the first target or the second. This also intrinsically means you roll the 1d8 fire twice: once for each target.
Option 2: You must roll your fire damage once - both targets take the same1d8 fire. This means both targets also take 4 fire.
This means if your initial attack roll is a critical hit, you need to track your dice: one of your d8s is for both targets, and the other is only for the first one.
Flame Tongue blades deal 1d8 damage with a melee hit, + my ability modifier is added to the damage the weapon deals, of the weapons typeâwhich is piercing for a rapier. The rules for how a weapon attack deals damage is not changed because a weapon deals extra damage of a different type. A flame tongue rapier has a magical effect which adds an extra 2d6 fire damage to the damage roll, but I do not get to choose to make the weapon's ability modifier based damage into fire damage because of that, unless you know of any quote from Jeremy Crawford which states otherwise. I have never uncovered one before.
I'm specifically building this to deal the most possible damage to the creature struck with the blade. The damage to the secondary creature is only a side effect of the spell, and will never receive any of the possible bonuses that I could apply to it, so I did not demonstrate the possibility of assigning additional damage to the secondary creature with my calculations. The point of the calculations and peer reviewing prompt was to confirm which sections of the total damage would be and would not be resisted by a creature with resistance to fire damage.
I choose to operate under the assumption that the fire damage dealt by Green Flame Blade to the target is not the same roll used to damage the second creature. Being able to apply by Charisma modifier twice to the second creature does not seem to me like the intent of the combination of the Sorcerer feature and Spell description. I enjoyed exploring the alternative option, but I don't think it is quite the fairest interpretation (despite my obvious attempt to design a minmaxed GISH).
You word your bullet about critical hits confusingly, but, Critical hits are not of concern in this calculation in general. I'm however aware that the wording of Green-Flame Blade means that the leaping flames do not "target" the second creature, nor is it the second creature the target of the attack which is made as part of the action used to cast the spell, meaning any damage dice rolled against the second creature do not crit, per my decision in the previous paragraph. This also, seems the fairest ruling to me.
I had overlooked that quindraco, but Green-Flame Blade states "Both damage rolls" in the last sentence, so I think it is fair to say this is an exception and you roll damage separately for each target.
Well indicated, and pointed before I noticed it myself! Huzzah for my choice to rule in that favor beforehand anyway! Huzzah I say.
I had overlooked that quindraco, but Green-Flame Blade states "Both damage rolls" in the last sentence, so I think it is fair to say this is an exception and you roll damage separately for each target.
Well indicated, and pointed before I noticed it myself! Huzzah for my choice to rule in that favor beforehand anyway! Huzzah I say.
Agreed - that should establish the number of damage rolls is 2.
Flame Tongue blades deal 1d8 damage with a melee hit, + my ability modifier is added to the damage the weapon deals, of the weapons typeâwhich is piercing for a rapier.
There is no rule telling you how to assign the type of any rule that adds generic extra or additional damage, including your ability modifier, dueling, Hunter's Mark, Sneak Attack, etc.
So far as I know, the commonly accepted rule for dealing with this with a weapon that deals damage of multiple types is to let the attacker choose.
A flame tongue rapier has a magical effect which adds an extra 2d6 fire damage to the damage roll, but I do not get to choose to make the weapon's ability modifier based damage into fire damage because of that, unless you know of any quote from Jeremy Crawford which states otherwise. I have never uncovered one before.
Yep, just provided it. It's usually easy finding JC tweets that contradict JC tweets - he's generally not consistent.
I'm specifically building this to deal the most possible damage to the creature struck with the blade.
Celestial Warlock will do this better than Draconic Bloodline Sorcerer in general, because your resistance is permanent and the impact on GFB is identical. Both abilities kick in at L6. What a Draconic Bloodline Sorcerer does better, if you don't mind shelling out the Sorcery Points, is twofold: 1) Quickened Spell for more swording, and 2) Transmuted Spell for Booming Blade with Fire instead of Thunder.
If you want to dial this up to 11, any Cleric with Potent Spellcasting blows both of them out of the water for a single attack, because you add your Wisdom modifier to both of the damage rolls (for both GFB and BB) starting at level 8. The problem is having the spells as cleric cantrips, but e.g. an Arcana cleric can do it. However, this build won't give you access to Quickened Spell or Invocations or anything like that.
Using flexible casting, I have 20 1st level spell slots for Shield, or Hellish Rebuke, and I can easily have up to 3 of those spell slots converted into 6 sorcerery points at a time to quicken cast the spell All over again.
I encourage you to play this out and see how it works, but I have a couple doubts that this is the most effective route for you.
First, I think it's unlikely that you're going to be making 20 Reactions in a typical day, given that both of those spells only happen when an enemy attacks you and exceeds your AC.
Secondly this is a very reactive playstyle, which means it relies on the DM behaving a certain way to make it work. If you are simply ignored by the enemies - and why wouldn't they if they were unlikely to land a hit and if they did they'd be damaged for it? - all the power in your spellcasting feature is unspent. It sets up a dynamic where you don't only want the enemies to attack you, you want them to hit to be most effective. If your allies are doing things that reduce the chances of you being hit, you're kind of working at odds with each other - they're spending resources so that you don't spend your resources for the thing that you've already allocated them for.
Thirdly, HB doesn't scale well without upcasting. At the least I'd save some higher level slots for stronger rebukes. Quicken implies you're also wanting to cast something else but I'm not sure what that is? Regardless, it is probably also going to become relatively weak without upcasting.
There is no rule telling you how to assign the type of any rule that adds generic extra or additional damage, including your ability modifier, dueling, Hunter's Mark, Sneak Attack, etc.
Each weapon, spell, and harmful monster ability specifies the damage it deals. You roll the damage die or dice, add any modifiers, and apply the damage to your target. Magic weapons, special abilities, and other factors can grant a bonus to damage. With a penalty, it is possible to deal 0 damage, but never negative damage. (PHB. 196)
With how I interpret the rules, there is a clear difference between weapon damage, and extra damage dealt by a weapon, similar to how a weapon attack is different than an attack with a weapon. While it's excruciatingly frustrating that no official ruling on the matter has been given, I find that to be the obvious and logical answer. If a Mace deals damage (Damage Dice = 1d6. Damage Type = bludgeoning) and deals an extra 1 fire damage, you shouldn't be able to turn your +4 damage from a Strength score of 18 into fire damage The weapon only deals the amount of fire damage that is says it deals (there are no hidden rules. JC), whether that's 2d6 or 1.
The tweet does not state that the 2d6 of a flame tongue is weapon damage, it states that it is extra damage dealt by the weapon, as opposed to damage dealt by a feature like Divine Smite. JC tends to contradict himself most often when he rephrases the wording of the rules to contextualize an answer, and I suspect a small number of those contradictions are only apparent due to this behavior
Celestial Warlock will do this better than Draconic Bloodline Sorcerer in general, because your resistance is permanent and the impact on GFB is identical. Both abilities kick in at L6. What a Draconic Bloodline Sorcerer does better, if you don't mind shelling out the Sorcery Points, is twofold: 1) Quickened Spell for more swording, and 2) Transmuted Spell for Booming Blade with Fire instead of Thunder.
If you want to dial this up to 11, any Cleric with Potent Spellcasting blows both of them out of the water for a single attack, because you add your Wisdom modifier to both of the damage rolls (for both GFB and BB) starting at level 8. The problem is having the spells as cleric cantrips, but e.g. an Arcana cleric can do it. However, this build won't give you access to Quickened Spell or Invocations or anything like that.
No? Celestial grants resistance to Radiant Damage, which is irrelevant. As a tiefling, the character is naturally resistant to fire damage, so I never have to expend Sorcery points to gain it, but the Draconic Sorcerer none-the-less also gives me a nonmagical +3 to AC, additional HP, meta magic, sorcery points, and the all-important-to-this-build flexible casting. That would also sacrifice the Genie Warlock damage bonus. Additionally, there are no Eldritch invocations granted at 6th level that would be valuable enough to the build to be worth trading out.
Quickened spell is already in the roster.
I don't value Booming Blade for this build, nor transmuting it to deal fire damage, since that would be wasting my shield/hellish rebuke spell slots on Sorcery Points. The damage of a cantripâthat might deal 2d8 thunder damage to the targetâisn't to me, worth the investment.
I'm aware of potent spellcasting, but I can only take so many levels before the campaign ends. As for trading for cleric, Draconic Bloodline Sorcerer averages the same Hit Points as a cleric, but also comes all of the features that the build is designed around. It began as a concept build, but worked its way into a proper and beloved character design, well rounded. As it levels during the character's campaign, the build will mainline deeper into the Sorcerer to gain more spell slots and sorcery points, perhaps into where keeping 2nd level spell slots instead of 1st level for Hellish Rebuke becomes worthwhile.
The build is built around turning a Sorcerer into a powerful sword-caster, on principle. Conceptually, the themes behind the character are mostly around trying to be cool (the character is in their teen goth phase) with swords and fire.
Ultimately, it's well crafted to be exactly what I need it to be, based on the adventure being run and the party the character is running with. While I appreciate the time you took to consider alternative build routes, I've explored them all intimately already, and am not requesting advice on how to change it. The lore behind the character would additionaly need drastic changing as well were I to implement class changes.
I encourage you to play this out and see how it works, but I have a couple doubts that this is the most effective route for you.
First, I think it's unlikely that you're going to be making 20 Reactions in a typical day, given that both of those spells only happen when an enemy attacks you and exceeds your AC.
Secondly this is a very reactive playstyle, which means it relies on the DM behaving a certain way to make it work. If you are simply ignored by the enemies - and why wouldn't they if they were unlikely to land a hit and if they did they'd be damaged for it? - all the power in your spellcasting feature is unspent. It sets up a dynamic where you don't only want the enemies to attack you, you want them to hit to be most effective. If your allies are doing things that reduce the chances of you being hit, you're kind of working at odds with each other - they're spending resources so that you don't spend your resources for the thing that you've already allocated them for.
Thirdly, HB doesn't scale well without upcasting. At the least I'd save some higher level slots for stronger rebukes. Quicken implies you're also wanting to cast something else but I'm not sure what that is? Regardless, it is probably also going to become relatively weak without upcasting.
Oh, no doubt. That's why when enemies aren't strong enough to coax reactions out of me, I waste into them deeper with Quickened casting Green-Flame blade.
Part of the design concept with the mechanics of this build, is that even when out of resources, it can still deal a lot of damage, and keep a high AC. Not needing to spend resources, is part of the appeal, because I can save those resources for out of combat situations (different spells). I can however, maximize my damage output by recasting Green Flame Blade, maximize my AC by casting shield (to tank, or to stay alive), and increase my DPR by casting Hellish Rebukeâsometimes even choosing to take a hit to do so, or as a consolation for an attack I don't want hitting me, exceeding what the Shield spell could do to protect me.
Of course any tanking strategy relies on being attacked, which is why Barbarians are good at aggressing too. The build is able to tank when needed to, either as an AC tank or Damage-Back tank, and it's great at dealing damage without expending resources. I think that's really cool. The build doesn't easily run out of juice!
Trust me that this route for me, is exactly as effective as I want it to be, for all of the things I want it to do based on the game and party it's built for.
I have a character which is kind of complicated, but built basically to be the most đ„ FIRE + SWORD đ„ possible. Because of this, they have the [feat]elemental adept[feat] feat (fire).
I'm looking for confirmation on my calculations concerning which parts of this damage equation are halved due to fire resistance from spells being ignoredâdue to the featâand which parts are not halved. For reference, Matthew Colville has lready gone on to say the the spell Green-Flame Blade does not make the weapon attack made as part of the spell into magical damage, meaning that is it made as part of the spell, but is not included in the spell's effects.
Equation Contributors:
Weapon â Flame Tongue Rapier (NOT MAGICAL DAMAGE FROM A SPELL)
1d8 piercing damage + 5 piercing damage (DEX)
2d6 fire damage
Spell â Green-Flame Blade (MAGICAL DAMAGE FROM A SPELL)
1d8 fire damage
1d8 + 4 fire damage (CHA) to second target
Fighter Feature (1 level) â Fighting Style: Dueling (NOT MAGICAL DAMAGE FROM A SPELL)
+ 2 piercing damage
Sorcerer Feature (6 levels) â Elemental Affinity (MAGICAL DAMAGE FROM A SPELL.)
+4 fire damage (CHA)
Warlock Feature (1 level) â Genie's Wrath (Efreeti) (NOT MAGICAL DAMAGE FROM A SPELL. THIS IS APPLIED TO THE ATTACK MADE BEFORE THE SPELL DEALS DAMAGE)
+ 3 fire damage (PROF)
The final calculation condensed is this: 1d8+7 piercing damage + 1d8+4 fire damage (+ 1d8+4 fire damage to second target) + 2d6+3 fire damage.
â = Piercing damage (resistance to fire damage does not half this damage)
â = Fire damage from a spell (resistance to fire damage does not half this damage)
â = Fire damage, not from a spell (resistance to fire damage DOES half this damage)
Does this look correct to all ya'll?
Visit (link) â MicroHomebrew, Arcanum Dice, and Ashfaera â (link) Visit
Yes, I think it is correct. Nice work.
Not quite. Green-Flame-Blade does not deal damage to the target of the attack until 5th level. It scales like so:
1st - 0 to attack target - 4 (CHA) to second target
5th - 1d8 to attack target - 1d8+4 to second target
11th - 2d8 to attack target - 2d8+4 to second target
17 - 3d8 to attack target - 3d8+4 to second target
EDIT: While my statement was correct, my interpretation of your build was not. Your 6th level feature allows you to add your ability score modifier to one roll of the cantrip. Your build is correct at 6th level.
the build is at 8th level currently; 6 levels of sorcerer, 1 level of fighter, and 1 level of warlock.
I should have been more forthcoming with that.
Visit (link) â MicroHomebrew, Arcanum Dice, and Ashfaera â (link) Visit
I'm curious why not go 7 Eldritch Knight for War Magic + Action Surge + an extra ASI for Elemental Affinity, or 7 Bladesinger for their special version of Extra Attack. Sure, you'd lose Elemental Affinity, but you'd be gaining extra rapier attacks that'll add more damage than you lose.
Also, if you pick Zariel Tiefling as your race, you'd get a free casting of Searing Smite and Branding Smite for even more enemy-burning fun and you'd also get a bit more mileage out of Elemental Affinity.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
No. Here we go.
So there are two possible answers.
Because with this build, I only want to focus on 1st level spells. Using flexible casting, I have 20 1st level spell slots for Shield, or Hellish Rebuke, and I can easily have up to 3 of those spell slots converted into 6 sorcerery points at a time to quicken cast the spell All over again. The build also has Seeking spell to decrease my chances of missing. The build as is, due to being a draconic sorcerer, has additional hit points, and an AC of 18 (easily 20 while wielding a shield, but I'm avoiding that until I can guarantee acquisition of a Ruby of the War Mage. Otherwise, I won't be able to cast shield or hellish rebuke).
I am a tiefling as well, but the vanilla brand, in order to an extra Hellish rebuke of 2nd level. I wanted to focus on the class not having to take time to cast and try to keep concentration on other spells. I considered both of those routes, of similar verisons of them in build already, but ultimately decided this combination was ideal for me.
Visit (link) â MicroHomebrew, Arcanum Dice, and Ashfaera â (link) Visit
I had overlooked that quindraco, but Green-Flame Blade states "Both damage rolls" in the last sentence, so I think it is fair to say this is an exception and you roll damage separately for each target.
Flame Tongue blades deal 1d8 damage with a melee hit, + my ability modifier is added to the damage the weapon deals, of the weapons typeâwhich is piercing for a rapier. The rules for how a weapon attack deals damage is not changed because a weapon deals extra damage of a different type. A flame tongue rapier has a magical effect which adds an extra 2d6 fire damage to the damage roll, but I do not get to choose to make the weapon's ability modifier based damage into fire damage because of that, unless you know of any quote from Jeremy Crawford which states otherwise. I have never uncovered one before.
I'm specifically building this to deal the most possible damage to the creature struck with the blade. The damage to the secondary creature is only a side effect of the spell, and will never receive any of the possible bonuses that I could apply to it, so I did not demonstrate the possibility of assigning additional damage to the secondary creature with my calculations.
The point of the calculations and peer reviewing prompt was to confirm which sections of the total damage would be and would not be resisted by a creature with resistance to fire damage.
I choose to operate under the assumption that the fire damage dealt by Green Flame Blade to the target is not the same roll used to damage the second creature. Being able to apply by Charisma modifier twice to the second creature does not seem to me like the intent of the combination of the Sorcerer feature and Spell description. I enjoyed exploring the alternative option, but I don't think it is quite the fairest interpretation (despite my obvious attempt to design a minmaxed GISH).
You word your bullet about critical hits confusingly, but, Critical hits are not of concern in this calculation in general. I'm however aware that the wording of Green-Flame Blade means that the leaping flames do not "target" the second creature, nor is it the second creature the target of the attack which is made as part of the action used to cast the spell, meaning any damage dice rolled against the second creature do not crit, per my decision in the previous paragraph. This also, seems the fairest ruling to me.
Visit (link) â MicroHomebrew, Arcanum Dice, and Ashfaera â (link) Visit
Well indicated, and pointed before I noticed it myself! Huzzah for my choice to rule in that favor beforehand anyway! Huzzah I say.
Visit (link) â MicroHomebrew, Arcanum Dice, and Ashfaera â (link) Visit
Agreed - that should establish the number of damage rolls is 2.
I encourage you to play this out and see how it works, but I have a couple doubts that this is the most effective route for you.
First, I think it's unlikely that you're going to be making 20 Reactions in a typical day, given that both of those spells only happen when an enemy attacks you and exceeds your AC.
Secondly this is a very reactive playstyle, which means it relies on the DM behaving a certain way to make it work. If you are simply ignored by the enemies - and why wouldn't they if they were unlikely to land a hit and if they did they'd be damaged for it? - all the power in your spellcasting feature is unspent. It sets up a dynamic where you don't only want the enemies to attack you, you want them to hit to be most effective. If your allies are doing things that reduce the chances of you being hit, you're kind of working at odds with each other - they're spending resources so that you don't spend your resources for the thing that you've already allocated them for.
Thirdly, HB doesn't scale well without upcasting. At the least I'd save some higher level slots for stronger rebukes. Quicken implies you're also wanting to cast something else but I'm not sure what that is? Regardless, it is probably also going to become relatively weak without upcasting.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
With how I interpret the rules, there is a clear difference between weapon damage, and extra damage dealt by a weapon, similar to how a weapon attack is different than an attack with a weapon.
While it's excruciatingly frustrating that no official ruling on the matter has been given, I find that to be the obvious and logical answer. If a Mace deals damage (Damage Dice = 1d6. Damage Type = bludgeoning) and deals an extra 1 fire damage, you shouldn't be able to turn your +4 damage from a Strength score of 18 into fire damage The weapon only deals the amount of fire damage that is says it deals (there are no hidden rules. JC), whether that's 2d6 or 1.
The tweet does not state that the 2d6 of a flame tongue is weapon damage, it states that it is extra damage dealt by the weapon, as opposed to damage dealt by a feature like Divine Smite. JC tends to contradict himself most often when he rephrases the wording of the rules to contextualize an answer, and I suspect a small number of those contradictions are only apparent due to this behavior
That would also sacrifice the Genie Warlock damage bonus.
Additionally, there are no Eldritch invocations granted at 6th level that would be valuable enough to the build to be worth trading out.
The build is built around turning a Sorcerer into a powerful sword-caster, on principle. Conceptually, the themes behind the character are mostly around trying to be cool (the character is in their teen goth phase) with swords and fire.
Ultimately, it's well crafted to be exactly what I need it to be, based on the adventure being run and the party the character is running with. While I appreciate the time you took to consider alternative build routes, I've explored them all intimately already, and am not requesting advice on how to change it. The lore behind the character would additionaly need drastic changing as well were I to implement class changes.
Visit (link) â MicroHomebrew, Arcanum Dice, and Ashfaera â (link) Visit
Oh, no doubt.
That's why when enemies aren't strong enough to coax reactions out of me, I waste into them deeper with Quickened casting Green-Flame blade.
Part of the design concept with the mechanics of this build, is that even when out of resources, it can still deal a lot of damage, and keep a high AC. Not needing to spend resources, is part of the appeal, because I can save those resources for out of combat situations (different spells). I can however, maximize my damage output by recasting Green Flame Blade, maximize my AC by casting shield (to tank, or to stay alive), and increase my DPR by casting Hellish Rebukeâsometimes even choosing to take a hit to do so, or as a consolation for an attack I don't want hitting me, exceeding what the Shield spell could do to protect me.
Of course any tanking strategy relies on being attacked, which is why Barbarians are good at aggressing too. The build is able to tank when needed to, either as an AC tank or Damage-Back tank, and it's great at dealing damage without expending resources. I think that's really cool. The build doesn't easily run out of juice!
Trust me that this route for me, is exactly as effective as I want it to be, for all of the things I want it to do based on the game and party it's built for.
Visit (link) â MicroHomebrew, Arcanum Dice, and Ashfaera â (link) Visit
Fair enough, I can appreciate the versatility now that I see you have a proactive strategy as well.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm