If you are a Scribes Wizard, and cast Enervation, but use your Awakened Spellbook feature to change it to a different damage type, eg Fire...

Does it not heal because it says it heals you based on specifically how much necrotic damage the spell deals? Or does it change that too and so heals based on the new damage type?

Relevant Text:

When you cast a wizard spell with a spell slot, you can temporarily replace its damage type with a type that appears in another spell in your spellbook, which magically alters the spell’s formula for this casting only. The latter spell must be of the same level as the spell slot you expend.

.

On a successful save, the target takes 2d8 necrotic damage, and the spell ends. On a failed save, the target takes 4d8 necrotic damage, and until the spell ends, you can use your action on each of your turns to automatically deal 4d8 necrotic damage to the target. The spell ends if you use your action to do anything else, if the target is ever outside the spell’s range, or if the target has total cover from you.

Whenever the spell deals damage to a target, you regain hit points equal to half the amount of necrotic damage the target takes.

If you consider the healing to be a function that follows from the damage type of the spell, then you can have the awakened spellbook change it too. If you feel that healing is explicit unto itself without regard to the damage the spell does, then don't change it. I'm confident that neither feature was written with the other in mind.

I could see it being interpreted either way, but I think "RAW heal text doesn't change" is most likely. I'd still allow it though rather than make the spell lose half its functionality with this feature.

Quote from TexasDevin >>

If you consider the healing to be a function that follows from the damage type of the spell, then you can have the awakened spellbook change it too. If you feel that healing is explicit unto itself without regard to the damage the spell does, then don't change it. I'm confident that neither feature was written with the other in mind.

Pardon me quoting myself, but I wanted to elaborate on this a bit more. When the awakened spellbook says it alters the damage type for that casting, it does not qualify that it replaces the damage type only for the parts of the spell that cause damage, although that is all that matters in most cases. When I look at enervation, I see that the damage type is necrotic and there are two places where it is referenced--in the damage it deals and in the amount it heals. If the awakened spellbook replaces the damage type throughout the entire spell, then every instance of the spell doing necrotic damage would be replaced by the spell doing fire damage and therefore the healing would change as well.

This is my inference, so it's fair to see things differently. If you want to fall back on, "The spell says it heals the necrotic damage it does," then I certainly cannot say you are wrong. I just take a broader view on the power of the awakened spellbook.

Quote from TexasDevin >>

Quote from TexasDevin >>

If you consider the healing to be a function that follows from the damage type of the spell, then you can have the awakened spellbook change it too. If you feel that healing is explicit unto itself without regard to the damage the spell does, then don't change it. I'm confident that neither feature was written with the other in mind.

Pardon me quoting myself, but I wanted to elaborate on this a bit more. When the awakened spellbook says it alters the damage type for that casting, it does not qualify that it replaces the damage type only for the parts of the spell that cause damage, although that is all that matters in most cases. When I look at enervation, I see that the damage type is necrotic and there are two places where it is referenced--in the damage it deals and in the amount it heals. If the awakened spellbook replaces the damage type throughout the entire spell, then every instance of the spell doing necrotic damage would be replaced by the spell doing fire damage and therefore the healing would change as well.

This is my inference, so it's fair to see things differently. If you want to fall back on, "The spell says it heals the necrotic damage it does," then I certainly cannot say you are wrong. I just take a broader view on the power of the awakened spellbook.

Yeah, I kind of feel like this is only even a debate because DDB added a 'Damage/Effect' line in their spell headers

If you look at a spell in the actual physical PHB, its damage type only appears in the description. If Scribes changes its damage type, that's where the change is happening -- and if you swap necrotic for fire in the description, you're swapping it in the healing aspect of the spell as well

I can see it either way. 
It would be odd to let it heal. Necrotic damage is basically sucking the life out of something, so it makes a kind of sense that the caster could skim a bit off the top. But fire isn’t doing the damage the same way, so there’s nothing to skim. That’s what the logical part of me says. 
Then I remember, the old D&D adage, it’s magic, it just works. So probably I’d let it heal. 

Quote from AntonSirius >>

Quote from TexasDevin >>

Quote from TexasDevin >>

If you consider the healing to be a function that follows from the damage type of the spell, then you can have the awakened spellbook change it too. If you feel that healing is explicit unto itself without regard to the damage the spell does, then don't change it. I'm confident that neither feature was written with the other in mind.

Pardon me quoting myself, but I wanted to elaborate on this a bit more. When the awakened spellbook says it alters the damage type for that casting, it does not qualify that it replaces the damage type only for the parts of the spell that cause damage, although that is all that matters in most cases. When I look at enervation, I see that the damage type is necrotic and there are two places where it is referenced--in the damage it deals and in the amount it heals. If the awakened spellbook replaces the damage type throughout the entire spell, then every instance of the spell doing necrotic damage would be replaced by the spell doing fire damage and therefore the healing would change as well.

This is my inference, so it's fair to see things differently. If you want to fall back on, "The spell says it heals the necrotic damage it does," then I certainly cannot say you are wrong. I just take a broader view on the power of the awakened spellbook.

 

Yeah, I kind of feel like this is only even a debate because DDB added a 'Damage/Effect' line in their spell headers

If you look at a spell in the actual physical PHB, its damage type only appears in the description. If Scribes changes its damage type, that's where the change is happening -- and if you swap necrotic for fire in the description, you're swapping it in the healing aspect of the spell as well

 Agreed.

Lifesteal effects - like Vampiric Touch - are always Necrotic damage. If it's lifesteal, it's Necrotic damage. And if it isn't Necrotic damage, then it isn't lifesteal. Also, the wording of the spell is explicit enough that there really shouldn't be much to discuss.

Quote from Acromos >>

Also, the wording of the spell is explicit enough that there really shouldn't be much to discuss.

The spell no longer does what it says it does. The spell does what the awakened spellbook feature changes it to do.

Quote from TexasDevin >>

Quote from Acromos >>

Also, the wording of the spell is explicit enough that there really shouldn't be much to discuss.

The spell no longer does what it says it does. The spell does what the awakened spellbook feature changes it to do.

 Hey - here's what Awakened Spellbook actually does:

• You can use the book as a spellcasting focus for your wizard spells.

• When you cast a wizard spell with a spell slot, you can temporarily replace its damage type with a type that appears in another spell in your spellbook, which magically alters the spell's formula for this casting only. The latter spell must be of the same level as the spell slot you expend.

• When you cast a wizard spell as a ritual, you can use the spell's normal casting time, rather than adding 10 minutes to it. Once you use this benefit, you can't do so again until you finish a long rest.

Specifically, it say "replace its damage type". 

It says nothing at all to support your interpretation.

Necrotic is the damage type for enervation... until you replace it.

Yes. So you get another damage type. So now, the new description for Enervation sounds like this: 

A tendril of inky darkness reaches out from you, touching a creature you can see within range to drain life from it. The target must make a Dexterity saving throw. On a successful save, the target takes 2d8 necrotic damage, and the spell ends. On a failed save, the target takes 4d8 [some other damage type], and until the spell ends, you can use your action on each of your turns to automatically deal 4d8 necrotic damage to the target. The spell ends if you use your action to do anything else, if the target is ever outside the spell’s range, or if the target has total cover from you.

Whenever the spell deals damage to a target, you regain hit points equal to half the amount of necrotic damage the target takes.

At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 6th level or higher, the damage increases by 1d8 for each slot level above 5th.

The end.

Quote from Acromos >>

Yes. So you get another damage type. So now, the new description for Enervation sounds like this: 

A tendril of inky darkness reaches out from you, touching a creature you can see within range to drain life from it. The target must make a Dexterity saving throw. On a successful save, the target takes 2d8 necrotic damage, and the spell ends. On a failed save, the target takes 4d8 [some other damage type], and until the spell ends, you can use your action on each of your turns to automatically deal 4d8 necrotic damage to the target. The spell ends if you use your action to do anything else, if the target is ever outside the spell’s range, or if the target has total cover from you.

Whenever the spell deals damage to a target, you regain hit points equal to half the amount of necrotic damage the target takes.

At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 6th level or higher, the damage increases by 1d8 for each slot level above 5th.

The end.

You ignored two instances of the spell's damage type. Why?