"our team does look online at people's discussions, but where our team spends most of its time when it comes to digging into people's thoughts on different elements of the game: it's through the surveys. we currently have THREE members of our design team who are spending substantial amounts of time reading what people are writing and, uh, not only that feedback that's coming in but then our analysis of it is having a powerful impact on where things are headed in the game." 22:33
i forget where (maybe the playtest 7 thread), but there was some discussion about whether they read the forums or not. maybe they do? interesting.
Yes, and I don't believe it. But hey, who knows. Maybe they have three people enslaved.
three people they keep catching on reddit instead of flipping through surveys, i'm sure.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
"our team does look online at people's discussions, but where our team spends most of its time when it comes to digging into people's thoughts on different elements of the game: it's through the surveys. we currently have THREE members of our design team who are spending substantial amounts of time reading what people are writing and, uh, not only that feedback that's coming in but then our analysis of it is having a powerful impact on where things are headed in the game." 22:33
i forget where (maybe the playtest 7 thread), but there was some discussion about whether they read the forums or not. maybe they do? interesting.
Yes, and I don't believe it. But hey, who knows. Maybe they have three people enslaved.
three people they keep catching on reddit instead of flipping through surveys, i'm sure.
Contextually, they are referring to the surveys, so they are likely reading the survey responses.
I know mine are rather pointed and dense, even after editing them down to fit the required character limits. Given they getting several thousand survey responses, thats a lot of material to dig through (speaking from experience) -- and that's before you even get to the deeper analysis parts.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Damn, haven’t watched but doesn’t look like we will see the Monk revision. WTF!!!
It’s going to be in the playtest 9.
Which I call BS on. Sorry, just a bit salty, but Monk was the last class to be released. Every other class has been out twice and JC even said for most of the classes in UA6 they are done with and we probably won't see them again (for now, I think he said) with the exception of Druid, I believe. And he said Shadow and Elements are pretty much done as well so it's only the base class and Hand that they are revisiting. Why wait until UA9?
Damn, haven’t watched but doesn’t look like we will see the Monk revision. WTF!!!
Those must have been some scathing survey responses.
Possibly.
And did they even say how Monk scored? I believe JC said Elements was in the 70's compared to the 11% satisfaction on the initial PHB survey a couple years ago. But no numbers on the base class or Shadow or Hand. Unless I missed it.
They most likely needed more time to polish the Monk and other things. We still have 2 more PHB playtest UAs. They decided to surprise release the Bastion playtest so we have something instead of waiting an extra month with nothing new to playtest.
Damn, haven’t watched but doesn’t look like we will see the Monk revision. WTF!!!
It’s going to be in the playtest 9.
Which I call BS on. Sorry, just a bit salty, but Monk was the last class to be released. Every other class has been out twice and JC even said for most of the classes in UA6 they are done with and we probably won't see them again (for now, I think he said) with the exception of Druid, I believe. And he said Shadow and Elements are pretty much done as well so it's only the base class and Hand that they are revisiting. Why wait until UA9?
Damn, haven’t watched but doesn’t look like we will see the Monk revision. WTF!!!
Those must have been some scathing survey responses.
Possibly.
And did they even say how Monk scored? I believe JC said Elements was in the 70's compared to the 11% satisfaction on the initial PHB survey a couple years ago. But no numbers on the base class or Shadow or Hand. Unless I missed it.
They most likely needed more time to polish the Monk and other things. We still have 2 more PHB playtest UAs. They decided to surprise release the Bastion playtest so we have something instead of waiting an extra month with nothing new to playtest.
Possibly, but JC they had been typically leap frogging so Playtest 6 should have had revisions this playtest. And it seems like they usually release a UA a couple weeks after the survey closes on the most recent UA, which was today. So I was expecting Monks in a couple weeks. But who knows how long it will be now. Maybe they are waiting to get UA7 results and put out any classes/subclasses they deemed to need another go, with the monk. I hope not, since that might be an even longer wait.
While true strike is better than fire bolt at pretty much any tier... I'm not that the problem is actually true strike. The problem might be other cantrips. Maybe all cantrips should be adding ability score by default, and then get a reduced die type, so fire bolt is (tier)d8 + casting ability score. Then true strike, which only gets +1d6 per tier, would need a +1 weapon per tier to keep up, which is... plausible.
This would make spellcaster in tier 1 better, but... is that actually a problem? Most complaints about spellcaster power relate to tier 3 and 4, and changing fire bolt in tier 3 from 3d10 (16.5) to 3d8+int (18.5) is not really going to seriously affect that.
While true strike is better than fire bolt at pretty much any tier... I'm not that the problem is actually true strike. The problem might be other cantrips. Maybe all cantrips should be adding ability score by default, and then get a reduced die type, so fire bolt is (tier)d8 + casting ability score. Then true strike, which only gets +1d6 per tier, would need a +1 weapon per tier to keep up, which is... plausible.
This would make spellcaster in tier 1 better, but... is that actually a problem? Most complaints about spellcaster power relate to tier 3 and 4, and changing fire bolt in tier 3 from 3d10 (16.5) to 3d8+int (18.5) is not really going to seriously affect that.
Most complaints about spellcaster power relate to tier 3 and 4... so you want to make them broken at all levels? Fire bolt is fine.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Class feature’s are more likely to be guaranteed then magic item’s.On the subject of class features you could be a Pact of Tome Celestial Warlock with Firebolt and Agonizing Blast so you could add your charisma modifier twice.
Technically this Cantrip does radiant damage so Celestial Resilience would also apply for True Strike at that point, and presumably is also applicable too Agonizing Blast, if not from level 1, then from level 5 since it adds damage then and as it's a Warlock cantrip, don't even need Pact of Tome, you could basically be a melee Warlock from level 1 without getting any tome, gets a bit lame later on and it doesn't give you proficiency with better weapons but it's a back-up option for Warlocks who want a melee option and not Pact of the Blade.
Celestial Warlock with shortbow, True Strike and Agonising Blast, level 17, CHA 20 (+5):
1d6+5 from the bow, +3d6 from True Strike, +4*5 from Agonising Blast, +5 from Radiant Soul = 4d6+30 (average 44, range 34-54)
compared to Eldritch Blast and Agonising Blast:
4d10 + 4*5 = average 42 (24-60).
Makes a viable alternative to Eldritch Blast and could be quite a flavoursome build.
It looks like Shillelagh and True Strike could work together, so you could go for a melee Druid:
2d6+5 force (Shillelagh), +3d6 Radiant (True Strike), +2d6 Thunder (Primal Fury) = 7d6+5 (average 29.5, 12-47) - actually not that great for that level, I suppose, but not terrible for a Spellcaster in melee.
Now, would Agonising Blast work with Shillelagh? If so, then perhaps Fighter 15 / Warlock 2 (Pact of the Tome: Shillelagh, Agonising Blast), CHA 20:
3 attacks, each hit doing 2d6+5 + 2*5 Force damage = average 22 (17-27), potentially 66/round.
Most complaints about spellcaster power relate to tier 3 and 4... so you want to make them broken at all levels? Fire bolt is fine.
Cantrips in tier 1 are crud. If you have a 14 Dex, carrying around a light crossbow is better than casting fire bolt.
Yup. Casters won't be doing more reliable long-term damage than martials at lower levels. What's your point?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Class feature’s are more likely to be guaranteed then magic item’s.On the subject of class features you could be a Pact of Tome Celestial Warlock with Firebolt and Agonizing Blast so you could add your charisma modifier twice.
Technically this Cantrip does radiant damage so Celestial Resilience would also apply for True Strike at that point, and presumably is also applicable too Agonizing Blast, if not from level 1, then from level 5 since it adds damage then and as it's a Warlock cantrip, don't even need Pact of Tome, you could basically be a melee Warlock from level 1 without getting any tome, gets a bit lame later on and it doesn't give you proficiency with better weapons but it's a back-up option for Warlocks who want a melee option and not Pact of the Blade.
Celestial Warlock with shortbow, True Strike and Agonising Blast, level 17, CHA 20 (+5):
1d6+5 from the bow, +3d6 from True Strike, +4*5 from Agonising Blast, +5 from Radiant Soul = 4d6+30 (average 44, range 34-54)
compared to Eldritch Blast and Agonising Blast:
4d10 + 4*5 = average 42 (24-60).
Makes a viable alternative to Eldritch Blast and could be quite a flavoursome build.
It looks like Shillelagh and True Strike could work together, so you could go for a melee Druid:
2d6+5 force (Shillelagh), +3d6 Radiant (True Strike), +2d6 Thunder (Primal Fury) = 7d6+5 (average 29.5, 12-47) - actually not that great for that level, I suppose, but not terrible for a Spellcaster in melee.
Now, would Agonising Blast work with Shillelagh? If so, then perhaps Fighter 15 / Warlock 2 (Pact of the Tome: Shillelagh, Agonising Blast), CHA 20:
3 attacks, each hit doing 2d6+5 + 2*5 Force damage = average 22 (17-27), potentially 66/round.
1) your math is wrong: For Celestial w. Shortbow you could add AB only once (if at all)
2) Radiant Soul only adds damage to a damage roll AGAINST THE SPELLS TARGET. Also, technically the weapon attach deals the damage, not the spell so I’d say I’ts not eligible for AB either.
3) Shillelagh definitely doesn’t deal damage hence AB is not applicable (even if itwas, you have the same math error with AB as above)
1) your math is wrong: For Celestial w. Shortbow you could add AB only once (if at all)
2) Radiant Soul only adds damage to a damage roll AGAINST THE SPELLS TARGET. Also, technically the weapon attach deals the damage, not the spell so I’d say I’ts not eligible for AB either.
3) Shillelagh definitely doesn’t deal damage hence AB is not applicable (even if itwas, you have the same math error with AB as above)
You're right about the the maths being wrong, it'd be 1d6+5, +3d6+5+5, so 4d6+15 or ~29. However the attack in question is made as part of the cantrip, which would usually infer that the damage is from the cantrip, further too that, the Cantrip Upgrade is to add additional damage, it is a bit confusing since the only other spells that act like this are Booming Blade and Green-Flame Blade, Booming Blade does explicitly say it's the spells damage when looking at the additional damage from when that cantrip upgrades. I'd say precedent would be that the weapon damage is counted as being from the cantrip, more so when it does additional damage at later levels, 5+.
1) your math is wrong: For Celestial w. Shortbow you could add AB only once (if at all)
2) Radiant Soul only adds damage to a damage roll AGAINST THE SPELLS TARGET. Also, technically the weapon attach deals the damage, not the spell so I’d say I’ts not eligible for AB either.
3) Shillelagh definitely doesn’t deal damage hence AB is not applicable (even if itwas, you have the same math error with AB as above)
You're right about the the maths being wrong, it'd be 1d6+5, +3d6+5+5, so 4d6+15 or ~29. However the attack in question is made as part of the cantrip, which would usually infer that the damage is from the cantrip, further too that, the Cantrip Upgrade is to add additional damage, it is a bit confusing since the only other spells that act like this are Booming Blade and Green-Flame Blade, Booming Blade does explicitly say it's the spells damage when looking at the additional damage from when that cantrip upgrades. I'd say precedent would be that the weapon damage is counted as being from the cantrip, more so when it does additional damage at later levels, 5+.
Thank you. I put the examples out partly to try to see if I was reading the new rules correctly.
Agonising Blast states that “You can add your Spellcasting ability modifier to that spell’s damage rolls.” My understanding with AB and EB is that AB adds your CHA to each damage roll. I know that EB is unusual in that it makes up to four separate attack rolls, but AB refers to “damage rolls”. Do we have any rules to clarify whether the “rolls” mean the total rolled for that use of the attack cantrip or each of the damage rolls? For comparison, the Cleric’s Potent Spellcasting feature reads: “You add your Wisdom modifier to the damage you deal with any Divine cantrip.”: damage rolls aren’t referenced.
Agonising Blast states that “You can add your Spellcasting ability modifier to that spell’s damage rolls.” My understanding with AB and EB is that AB adds your CHA to each damage roll. I know that EB is unusual in that it makes up to four separate attack rolls, but AB refers to “damage rolls”. Do we have any rules to clarify whether the “rolls” mean the total rolled for that use of the attack cantrip or each of the damage rolls? For comparison, the Cleric’s Potent Spellcasting feature reads: “You add your Wisdom modifier to the damage you deal with any Divine cantrip.”: damage rolls aren’t referenced.
No matter how many dice are rolled, it is ONE damage roll (e.g. Fireball is one damage roll for 8d6). Although I don't think that the term is explicitly defined that way in the rules, one can infer this from how it is used: If any effect increases/decreases damage rolls it is usually written as "... the attacks damage roll...", e.g.,
E m p o w e r e d E v o c a t i o n
Beginning at 10th level, you can add your Intelligence modifier to the damage roll of any wizard evocation spell you cast
If your interpretation was correct this would have to be worded either as "the damage rolls" or "one damage roll". (note that this is the wording from the phb, not dndbeyond - so probably a bad example ;))
You're right about the the maths being wrong, it'd be 1d6+5, +3d6+5+5, so 4d6+15 or ~29. However the attack in question is made as part of the cantrip, which would usually infer that the damage is from the cantrip, further too that, the Cantrip Upgrade is to add additional damage, it is a bit confusing since the only other spells that act like this are Booming Blade and Green-Flame Blade, Booming Blade does explicitly say it's the spells damage when looking at the additional damage from when that cantrip upgrades. I'd say precedent would be that the weapon damage is counted as being from the cantrip, more so when it does additional damage at later levels, 5+.
They should definitely clarify this. But if you are correct, then BB and GFB could trigger AB twice from lvl 5+.
Agonising Blast states that “You can add your Spellcasting ability modifier to that spell’s damage rolls.” My understanding with AB and EB is that AB adds your CHA to each damage roll. I know that EB is unusual in that it makes up to four separate attack rolls, but AB refers to “damage rolls”. Do we have any rules to clarify whether the “rolls” mean the total rolled for that use of the attack cantrip or each of the damage rolls? For comparison, the Cleric’s Potent Spellcasting feature reads: “You add your Wisdom modifier to the damage you deal with any Divine cantrip.”: damage rolls aren’t referenced.
No matter how many dice are rolled, it is ONE damage roll (e.g. Fireball is one damage roll for 8d6). Although I don't think that the term is explicitly defined that way in the rules, one can infer this from how it is used: If any effect increases/decreases damage rolls it is usually written as "... the attacks damage roll...", e.g.,
E m p o w e r e d E v o c a t i o n
Beginning at 10th level, you can add your Intelligence modifier to the damage roll of any wizard evocation spell you cast
If your interpretation was correct this would have to be worded either as "the damage rolls" or "one damage roll". (note that this is the wording from the phb, not dndbeyond - so probably a bad example ;))
Actually, Empowered Evocation is an interesting example here. The new version is “you can add your Intelligence modifier to one damage roll of that spell”. So, my reading is that a damage roll is the result on a single dice; if the damage roll were in fact the total of all the dice rolled, I can’t see why they would have to specify that it applies to only one.
Actually, Empowered Evocation is an interesting example here. The new version is “you can add your Intelligence modifier to one damage roll of that spell”. So, my reading is that a damage roll is the result on a single dice; if the damage roll were in fact the total of all the dice rolled, I can’t see why they would have to specify that it applies to only one.
That's exactly why I said it was a bad example. And I assume they changed it to clarify that evocation spells that actually have more damage rolls (such as e.g. Eldritch Blast) benefit only once.
Note that other features that use the same wording haven't been changed, e.g. Rage
Actually, Empowered Evocation is an interesting example here. The new version is “you can add your Intelligence modifier to one damage roll of that spell”. So, my reading is that a damage roll is the result on a single dice; if the damage roll were in fact the total of all the dice rolled, I can’t see why they would have to specify that it applies to only one.
I just assumed that this language was used to help clarify that the bonus damage was to be applied only once per spell, even if a spell used multiple damage roll instances. Such as with the case of Magic Missile or Scorching Ray, even if they were spread across multiple targets.
I've always played using the assumption that no matter how many additional dice is added to an effect, it remains a single damage roll; unless there are multiple attack checks involved.
Other sort of modifiers tend to use language like "bonus per dice" or "bonus per target", right?
Because if we generalise that assumption of how "bonus added to damage roll" in fact equals "bonus added per dice", then Martials meta would be all about greatswords now dealing double STR bonus damage, and Rogues will start vibrating at the opportunity to garnish every sneak attack dice with their DEX modifier. And that doesn't seem entirely As Intended to me, yeah?
Actually, Empowered Evocation is an interesting example here. The new version is “you can add your Intelligence modifier to one damage roll of that spell”. So, my reading is that a damage roll is the result on a single dice; if the damage roll were in fact the total of all the dice rolled, I can’t see why they would have to specify that it applies to only one.
I just assumed that this language was used to help clarify that the bonus damage was to be applied only once per spell, even if a spell used multiple damage roll instances. Such as with the case of Magic Missile or Scorching Ray, even if they were spread across multiple targets.
I've always played using the assumption that no matter how many additional dice is added to an effect, it remains a single damage roll; unless there are multiple attack checks involved.
Other sort of modifiers tend to use language like "bonus per dice" or "bonus per target", right?
Because if we generalise that assumption of how "bonus added to damage roll" in fact equals "bonus added per dice", then Martials meta would be all about greatswords now dealing double STR bonus damage, and Rogues will start vibrating at the opportunity to garnish every sneak attack dice with their DEX modifier. And that doesn't seem entirely As Intended to me, yeah?
Good point about the wording of Empowered Evocation and spells that make multiple attacks. However, neither the Rogue’s Sneak Attack nor the Barbarian’s Rage refer to the damage roll (or rolls), so we can’t extrapolate from those to Agonising Blast.
Good point about the wording of Empowered Evocation and spells that make multiple attacks. However, neither the Rogue’s Sneak Attack nor the Barbarian’s Rage refer to the damage roll (or rolls), so we can’t extrapolate from those to Agonising Blast.
While raging, you gain the following benefits if you aren’t wearing heavy armor:
You have advantage on Strength checks and Strength saving throws.
When you make a melee weapon attack using Strength, you gain a bonus to the damage roll that increases as you gain levels as a barbarian, as shown in the Rage Damage column of the Barbarian table.
You have resistance to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage.
emphasis mine.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
three people they keep catching on reddit instead of flipping through surveys, i'm sure.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
Contextually, they are referring to the surveys, so they are likely reading the survey responses.
I know mine are rather pointed and dense, even after editing them down to fit the required character limits. Given they getting several thousand survey responses, thats a lot of material to dig through (speaking from experience) -- and that's before you even get to the deeper analysis parts.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
They most likely needed more time to polish the Monk and other things. We still have 2 more PHB playtest UAs. They decided to surprise release the Bastion playtest so we have something instead of waiting an extra month with nothing new to playtest.
Possibly, but JC they had been typically leap frogging so Playtest 6 should have had revisions this playtest. And it seems like they usually release a UA a couple weeks after the survey closes on the most recent UA, which was today. So I was expecting Monks in a couple weeks. But who knows how long it will be now. Maybe they are waiting to get UA7 results and put out any classes/subclasses they deemed to need another go, with the monk. I hope not, since that might be an even longer wait.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
While true strike is better than fire bolt at pretty much any tier... I'm not that the problem is actually true strike. The problem might be other cantrips. Maybe all cantrips should be adding ability score by default, and then get a reduced die type, so fire bolt is (tier)d8 + casting ability score. Then true strike, which only gets +1d6 per tier, would need a +1 weapon per tier to keep up, which is... plausible.
This would make spellcaster in tier 1 better, but... is that actually a problem? Most complaints about spellcaster power relate to tier 3 and 4, and changing fire bolt in tier 3 from 3d10 (16.5) to 3d8+int (18.5) is not really going to seriously affect that.
Most complaints about spellcaster power relate to tier 3 and 4... so you want to make them broken at all levels? Fire bolt is fine.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Celestial Warlock with shortbow, True Strike and Agonising Blast, level 17, CHA 20 (+5):
1d6+5 from the bow, +3d6 from True Strike, +4*5 from Agonising Blast, +5 from Radiant Soul = 4d6+30 (average 44, range 34-54)
compared to Eldritch Blast and Agonising Blast:
4d10 + 4*5 = average 42 (24-60).
Makes a viable alternative to Eldritch Blast and could be quite a flavoursome build.
It looks like Shillelagh and True Strike could work together, so you could go for a melee Druid:
Level 17, Magic Initiate (Wizard): True Strike (+ Blade Ward?), Primal Order: Warden, Elemental Fury: Improved Primal Strike
2d6+5 force (Shillelagh), +3d6 Radiant (True Strike), +2d6 Thunder (Primal Fury) = 7d6+5 (average 29.5, 12-47) - actually not that great for that level, I suppose, but not terrible for a Spellcaster in melee.
Now, would Agonising Blast work with Shillelagh? If so, then perhaps Fighter 15 / Warlock 2 (Pact of the Tome: Shillelagh, Agonising Blast), CHA 20:
3 attacks, each hit doing 2d6+5 + 2*5 Force damage = average 22 (17-27), potentially 66/round.
Cantrips in tier 1 are crud. If you have a 14 Dex, carrying around a light crossbow is better than casting fire bolt.
Yup. Casters won't be doing more reliable long-term damage than martials at lower levels. What's your point?
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
My point is that there's nothing wrong with cantrips being worth using in tier 1. +5/1d8+3 is still worse than what any martial can manage.
1) your math is wrong: For Celestial w. Shortbow you could add AB only once (if at all)
2) Radiant Soul only adds damage to a damage roll AGAINST THE SPELLS TARGET. Also, technically the weapon attach deals the damage, not the spell so I’d say I’ts not eligible for AB either.
3) Shillelagh definitely doesn’t deal damage hence AB is not applicable (even if itwas, you have the same math error with AB as above)
You're right about the the maths being wrong, it'd be 1d6+5, +3d6+5+5, so 4d6+15 or ~29. However the attack in question is made as part of the cantrip, which would usually infer that the damage is from the cantrip, further too that, the Cantrip Upgrade is to add additional damage, it is a bit confusing since the only other spells that act like this are Booming Blade and Green-Flame Blade, Booming Blade does explicitly say it's the spells damage when looking at the additional damage from when that cantrip upgrades. I'd say precedent would be that the weapon damage is counted as being from the cantrip, more so when it does additional damage at later levels, 5+.
Thank you. I put the examples out partly to try to see if I was reading the new rules correctly.
Agonising Blast states that “You can add your Spellcasting ability modifier to that spell’s damage rolls.” My understanding with AB and EB is that AB adds your CHA to each damage roll. I know that EB is unusual in that it makes up to four separate attack rolls, but AB refers to “damage rolls”. Do we have any rules to clarify whether the “rolls” mean the total rolled for that use of the attack cantrip or each of the damage rolls? For comparison, the Cleric’s Potent Spellcasting feature reads: “You add your Wisdom modifier to the damage you deal with any Divine cantrip.”: damage rolls aren’t referenced.
No matter how many dice are rolled, it is ONE damage roll (e.g. Fireball is one damage roll for 8d6). Although I don't think that the term is explicitly defined that way in the rules, one can infer this from how it is used: If any effect increases/decreases damage rolls it is usually written as "... the attacks damage roll...", e.g.,
If your interpretation was correct this would have to be worded either as "the damage rolls" or "one damage roll". (note that this is the wording from the phb, not dndbeyond - so probably a bad example ;))
They should definitely clarify this. But if you are correct, then BB and GFB could trigger AB twice from lvl 5+.
Actually, Empowered Evocation is an interesting example here. The new version is “you can add your Intelligence modifier to one damage roll of that spell”. So, my reading is that a damage roll is the result on a single dice; if the damage roll were in fact the total of all the dice rolled, I can’t see why they would have to specify that it applies to only one.
That's exactly why I said it was a bad example. And I assume they changed it to clarify that evocation spells that actually have more damage rolls (such as e.g. Eldritch Blast) benefit only once.
Note that other features that use the same wording haven't been changed, e.g. Rage
I just assumed that this language was used to help clarify that the bonus damage was to be applied only once per spell, even if a spell used multiple damage roll instances. Such as with the case of Magic Missile or Scorching Ray, even if they were spread across multiple targets.
I've always played using the assumption that no matter how many additional dice is added to an effect, it remains a single damage roll; unless there are multiple attack checks involved.
Other sort of modifiers tend to use language like "bonus per dice" or "bonus per target", right?
Because if we generalise that assumption of how "bonus added to damage roll" in fact equals "bonus added per dice", then Martials meta would be all about greatswords now dealing double STR bonus damage, and Rogues will start vibrating at the opportunity to garnish every sneak attack dice with their DEX modifier. And that doesn't seem entirely As Intended to me, yeah?
Good point about the wording of Empowered Evocation and spells that make multiple attacks. However, neither the Rogue’s Sneak Attack nor the Barbarian’s Rage refer to the damage roll (or rolls), so we can’t extrapolate from those to Agonising Blast.
emphasis mine.