So, I really like Order of Scribes wizard, especially the benefits of the Awakened Spellbook at 3rd level. One thing I find odd (and probably what needs to be considered when choosing spells) is how changing the damage type interacts with certain spell effects. For example
Some fire spells have the added effect of igniting flammable objects. If I change the damage type to cold, acid, etc do the objects still ignite since its part of the spell effect that isn't modified?
For spells like Vampiric Touch, it states that after dealing the damage you "regain HP equal to half the necrotic damage dealt." I assume it stands to reason that if you change the damage type for this spell, you lose the healing benefit since you no longer deal that damage type.
RAW, as far as I can tell the effect of the spell should still operate as written regardless of how the damage type was changed. I am wondering whether it is RAI by WotC that there be a change to certain spell effects or not.
What do you think? What are some other neat examples of where changing a spell's damage type might result in some strange or counter-intuitive interactions with the other effects of that spell?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Four-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
In my opinion, the damage change does not affect the stats of the additional effects of the spell. If we use the fire spell that ignites the target on fire, for example, the changed damage type would merely flavor this lasting damage differently, such as cold damage slowly causing ice to creep over the skin of the creature, or acid taking it's time when melting a target. I believe that a part of the charm of the Order of Scribes is the ability to flavor the additional effects around the new damage type, and make the modified feel more unique and personalized to your character. In the Vampiric Touch example, I believe the extra emphasis with the specification 'necrotic damage' was merely to differentiate the damage done by this spell and any extra damage that my accompany, such as from a Hex or Hunter's Mark. However, you or your DM may disagree with me and that's perfectly okay, I only ask that my opinion be heard.
I can't stress enough how angry it makes me feel that the question "does my Fireball changed to an iceball still ignite flammable materials" is actually a valid one in this edition.
I would also rain destruction on a player who would try that shit at my table.
Is there a problem with changing Fireball to Acidball and "igniting" something with acid, as it slowly dissolves the object? I don't see any issues here, changing the element of a spell isn't even a balance concern. All the enemies resistant to fire are basically just demons. Besides, to even change a spell to bypass a resistance, you need to have a spell that would already bypass that resistance which you could be casting instead.
As for iceball, just have it make magical cold-fires or something. Even better, use TreeBugs idea and have the objects suffer from frostbite and slowly shatter apart.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
Coldfire is already a concept that has long existed in D&D. Fireshield is the primary spell effect still touting such things but it hasn't always been the only one. So the fact that it still burns or whatever is not that strange. And you don't actually change the saves on these spells despite the fact that different elemental damage types tend to have different saves associated to them. Perhaps what that "iceball/coldball" is firing out causes friction as it rains out and deals it's ice/cold/frost damage that is actually causing the residual fires somehow. Or that additional acid damage is because the acid started out frozen and then melts onto the person or object it's burning through. Or you can reflavor those additional affects a bit.
Really the few things like vampiric touch are the worst effected because they get a little too specific in how they work so you could find yourself in an easy position of doing a different kind of damage but shutting yourself out of the extra effects. Which in a way is just another limiter on this power that so many seem to find so over powered despite the fact that it exists in several different flavors and levels of access to different characters.
people are getting caught up over this effect but it's not that game changing. Bypassing resistance is not that ground breaking. There are several ways to do it and as often as not the other spells that do different kinds of damage are just as viable as the spell your changing. Your just gaining a little flexibility to not necessarily have that other damage spell always memorized at the same time. Sure changing that magic missile around is nice thanks to Chromatic orb. But there are situations where the full kick in the Teeth from Chromatic Orb itself is just worth the cost and better. Specially since Chromatic Orb qualifies for and is enhanced by certain feats that Magic Missile isn't even if you change it's damage type.
Even ease of access to this power isn't that ground breaking when some of the feats and such that allow similar abilities are all aquirable through certain choices like Variant Human or just a few levels in certain other classes, with differing restrictions of their own on when and how they entirely work.
Heck. Well before this subclass came out I already had done both a Variant Human STorm Sorcerer and a Variant Human Draconic Sorcerer that their chosen elements were effective on everything that wasn't outright immune from level 1 because of the Elemental Mastery Feat. So this power isn't exactly creating some gigantic switch up from things I've already done before elsewhere.
Just to be clear - I have no problems with creatively changing the effect of the spell based on the damage type. In fact, I encourage it as long as the effect corresponds to the damage type (which, again, is not RAW and that frustrates me).
I know that "cold flames" are nothing new to D&D but for all I know it's just a visual representation of the cold element (still cold, despite the shape of flames). AFAIK it doesn't really "burn" flammable materials like a normal fire.
I would rule that a Fireball changed to Coldball would flash freeze elements susceptible to cold, Acidball would dissolve it etc.
Which of course begs the question, why a Fireball with cold damage should be able to do it while Cone of Cold does not? But the question why some spells interact with environment and some don't is a matter for another discussion.
Cone of Cold actually does freeze things. Granted it's been limited at this point to only freezing them upon death. But at the point that you can obtain Cone of Cold on a wizard it is a rather devestating close range spell not unknown for outright killing people. And Frozen Corpses are good for shattering to ensure difficulty with Resurrecting dead invidividuals (it gets messy and tends to force use of higher level spells of such nature).
Other Cold Spells tend to have effects like either making difficult terrain or lowering movement speed as more traditional affects that tend to come with them.
So it's not entirely that spells like Cone of Cold don't do it but in general there are other somewhat narrowed effects tied to different elements. Effects that have the same kind of Cognitive dissonence when you change their elements but keep all their secondary effects the same. Acid and Fire are actually the two that most closely do the same type of effects since they both tend to cause some kind of item destruction potentially and continued damage.
Cone of Cold actually does freeze things. Granted it's been limited at this point to only freezing them upon death.
"Things" in this instance means creatures only. It does not interact with objects whatsoever which is part of my issue with many spells in 5e.
Water freezes in 0C in normal atmosphere, there are numerous instances where in extreme low temperatures people pour water outside and it basically instantly freezes but I am supposed to believe that cold so extreme that it does 8d8 points of damage is not able to freeze a glass of water?
Things like Lightning Bolt vs. Chain Lightning where one of them can't destroy a window but set hay on fire while the other can destroy a window but can't set hay on fire.
I get it that 5e is a game system and it must have simplified rules and I don't oppose some simplification in that manner. But when someone has a group of players like I do, who are intelligent people but quite new to DND, it is hard to sell it to them. They try to follow their common sense and don't understand why some spells can do this but not that even though they should. So I usually improvise.
There are spells that work on creatures only and it makes sense - Illusion and Enchantment spells are perfect examples. But there is zero reason beside arbitrary simplicity that spells that produce real life effects can't interact with non-creatures. In order to make it simple, there should be a note in the Spellcasting section that the DM is free to adjust the spells to promote creativity.
How am I supposed to explain to my Druid player that she can cast Grasping Vine and produce a real world effect (creating a physical vine) and target a creature but not an object on the ground? "Because the spell says 'creatures' and the sword you are trying to pick with your vine is not a creature"?
If your a DM you can always have Cone of Cold do more to things. But with the exception of certain things that become brittle or water becoming frozen. There is a lot of things that cold doesn't actively affect until temperatures get extreme.
As for Lightning Bolt. Keep in mind that it has been toned down for a very long time. The Version that made it truely iconic is way back in 2nd edition and that version not only ricocheted off walls meaning more potential damage than a fireball (and even potentially killing yourself) but it also busted through things like doors and windows and even could potentially penetrate certain thicknesses of stone.
Cone of Cold is another spell that as I recall got toned down some time back before even 5e got hold of it and used to basically freeze pretty much everything it touched unless you made your save.
it's sad that some of these things got stripped out so long ago that many dont' even know what some of the older versions were like. Or just how downplayed and left out some details about them are and why they might do what they do.
I can't stress enough how angry it makes me feel that the question "does my Fireball changed to an iceball still ignite flammable materials" is actually a valid one in this edition.
I would also rain destruction on a player who would try that shit at my table.
RAW it would I think. That's the part what this means IMO " Damage types have no rules of their own, but other rules, such as damage resistance, rely on the types." Fire does not have a rule that it ignites things. Fireball does, so a fireball that was turned to ice would still ignite things. Its freaking stupid, they should have come up with core rules on what things meant. And yes I'd tell any player who thought his ice ball should set things on fire, no.
No reason to deny it, it's super cool to throw a iceball that freezes things and slowly shatters it over time. In this context all "burning" means is the the objects slowly become not-objects, so you can reflavor that as basically anything, and it doesn't make the spell any more or less effective. Alternatively, according to Fateless, ice igniting things has always been a thing in previous editions with coldfire.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
Alternatively, according to Fateless, ice igniting things has always been a thing in previous editions with coldfire.
Actually now that I have read the description of Fireshield for AD&D, I'd like a concrete example of coldfire igniting things in previous editions. Because Fireshield made to protect from cold and deal cold damage is just a visual effect (which I am fine with) but has zero reference that it can actually ignite anything.
Again, not talking about the visual of blue flames emanating cold, I am talking about specific "can I burn this pile of wood with coldfire?" I don't think it works that way.
Alternatively, according to Fateless, ice igniting things has always been a thing in previous editions with coldfire.
Actually now that I have read the description of Fireshield for AD&D, I'd like a concrete example of coldfire igniting things in previous editions. Because Fireshield made to protect from cold and deal cold damage is just a visual effect (which I am fine with) but has zero reference that it can actually ignite anything.
Again, not talking about the visual of blue flames emanating cold, I am talking about specific "can I burn this pile of wood with coldfire?" I don't think it works that way.
Remember how you complained that not everything of the same element Reacted with objects the same way. Read through Fire shield Again. A Warm Fire shield that did fire damage didn't actually set anything on fire either. your complaining that you don't think it works that way because the fire is blue and cold. But it's part of the same issue that the fire created by it's red version can't do it either. now you could come to the conclusion that it's hot enough to hurt somebody but not hot enough to light anything on fire without sustained contact (A trait that is actually true with some temperatures of fire in real life mind you).
But there were actually other cold fire spells in 2nd edition. if i had access to my spell compendiums right now i could spend hours going through them and dig some of them up. many of them were actually quite rare. But other than cold fire usually causing cold damage the spells had a bit of variety of entire effects that they were capable of. Something that you could actually find if you had the resources in 2nd edition was actually fireballs that worked in a few different elements as actual official spells. one of them was actually an explosion of lightning just as an example that i can remember. But it really is hard to remember them all considering that the full 4 book spell compendium of pretty much all of the spells in second edition has something like 20k spells in total if not more than that. Though at this point the 2nd edition spell compendiums seem to be a rather rare resource as well.
If all spells reacted to the surrounding environment exclusively by RAW, every spell description would be 7 paragraphs long which would be terrible for the game in multiple ways.
Cone of Cold can totally freeze a glass of water if you want it to do so. Of course it can. It can turn a liquid surface into ice for 2d4 rounds if you want it to do so. The DM is encouraged to do stuff like this. It's just massively easier to offload that kind of thing onto the DM's brain rather than trying to anticipate every interaction in the spell block as if you're coding something for a video game.
If all spells reacted to the surrounding environment exclusively by RAW, every spell description would be 7 paragraphs long which would be terrible for the game in multiple ways.
Cone of Cold can totally freeze a glass of water if you want it to do so. Of course it can. It can turn a liquid surface into ice for 2d4 rounds if you want it to do so. The DM is encouraged to do stuff like this. It's just massively easier to offload that kind of thing onto the DM's brain rather than trying to anticipate every interaction in the spell block as if you're coding something for a video game.
Its not the spell where you put it, you put the rule under fire damage. Something like fire damage in excess of a unattended flammables object damage threshold ignites the object. For every 10 points of damage water will be frozen to a depth of 1 inch, electricity conducts through water, for every die of damage electricity damage when it strikes water becomes a radius area of effect of 1 foot etc. Heck even just a general comment, fire damage is fire, the DM can add additional effects based on what they think is appropriate to the situation. But the actual opposite is true, they went out of their way to make it clear that unless it is in the spell description, the spell just would not do it and this would be a house rule if the DM were to use logic. Nothing wrong with house rules, but it does change the feel of it rules wise.
its a good thing it only damaging spells for if the order of scribes had the ability to change all of the spell with all of the other spells they know then that will be busted as hell for they can take a fire ball and turn it into a -ball of healing- or a -ball of hast-
So, I really like Order of Scribes wizard, especially the benefits of the Awakened Spellbook at 3rd level. One thing I find odd (and probably what needs to be considered when choosing spells) is how changing the damage type interacts with certain spell effects. For example
RAW, as far as I can tell the effect of the spell should still operate as written regardless of how the damage type was changed. I am wondering whether it is RAI by WotC that there be a change to certain spell effects or not.
What do you think? What are some other neat examples of where changing a spell's damage type might result in some strange or counter-intuitive interactions with the other effects of that spell?
Four-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
In my opinion, the damage change does not affect the stats of the additional effects of the spell. If we use the fire spell that ignites the target on fire, for example, the changed damage type would merely flavor this lasting damage differently, such as cold damage slowly causing ice to creep over the skin of the creature, or acid taking it's time when melting a target. I believe that a part of the charm of the Order of Scribes is the ability to flavor the additional effects around the new damage type, and make the modified feel more unique and personalized to your character. In the Vampiric Touch example, I believe the extra emphasis with the specification 'necrotic damage' was merely to differentiate the damage done by this spell and any extra damage that my accompany, such as from a Hex or Hunter's Mark. However, you or your DM may disagree with me and that's perfectly okay, I only ask that my opinion be heard.
Three bugs on a keyboard
I can't stress enough how angry it makes me feel that the question "does my Fireball changed to an iceball still ignite flammable materials" is actually a valid one in this edition.
I would also rain destruction on a player who would try that shit at my table.
Is there a problem with changing Fireball to Acidball and "igniting" something with acid, as it slowly dissolves the object? I don't see any issues here, changing the element of a spell isn't even a balance concern. All the enemies resistant to fire are basically just demons. Besides, to even change a spell to bypass a resistance, you need to have a spell that would already bypass that resistance which you could be casting instead.
As for iceball, just have it make magical cold-fires or something. Even better, use TreeBugs idea and have the objects suffer from frostbite and slowly shatter apart.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
Coldfire is already a concept that has long existed in D&D. Fireshield is the primary spell effect still touting such things but it hasn't always been the only one. So the fact that it still burns or whatever is not that strange. And you don't actually change the saves on these spells despite the fact that different elemental damage types tend to have different saves associated to them. Perhaps what that "iceball/coldball" is firing out causes friction as it rains out and deals it's ice/cold/frost damage that is actually causing the residual fires somehow. Or that additional acid damage is because the acid started out frozen and then melts onto the person or object it's burning through. Or you can reflavor those additional affects a bit.
Really the few things like vampiric touch are the worst effected because they get a little too specific in how they work so you could find yourself in an easy position of doing a different kind of damage but shutting yourself out of the extra effects. Which in a way is just another limiter on this power that so many seem to find so over powered despite the fact that it exists in several different flavors and levels of access to different characters.
people are getting caught up over this effect but it's not that game changing. Bypassing resistance is not that ground breaking. There are several ways to do it and as often as not the other spells that do different kinds of damage are just as viable as the spell your changing. Your just gaining a little flexibility to not necessarily have that other damage spell always memorized at the same time. Sure changing that magic missile around is nice thanks to Chromatic orb. But there are situations where the full kick in the Teeth from Chromatic Orb itself is just worth the cost and better. Specially since Chromatic Orb qualifies for and is enhanced by certain feats that Magic Missile isn't even if you change it's damage type.
Even ease of access to this power isn't that ground breaking when some of the feats and such that allow similar abilities are all aquirable through certain choices like Variant Human or just a few levels in certain other classes, with differing restrictions of their own on when and how they entirely work.
Heck. Well before this subclass came out I already had done both a Variant Human STorm Sorcerer and a Variant Human Draconic Sorcerer that their chosen elements were effective on everything that wasn't outright immune from level 1 because of the Elemental Mastery Feat. So this power isn't exactly creating some gigantic switch up from things I've already done before elsewhere.
Just to be clear - I have no problems with creatively changing the effect of the spell based on the damage type. In fact, I encourage it as long as the effect corresponds to the damage type (which, again, is not RAW and that frustrates me).
I know that "cold flames" are nothing new to D&D but for all I know it's just a visual representation of the cold element (still cold, despite the shape of flames). AFAIK it doesn't really "burn" flammable materials like a normal fire.
I would rule that a Fireball changed to Coldball would flash freeze elements susceptible to cold, Acidball would dissolve it etc.
Which of course begs the question, why a Fireball with cold damage should be able to do it while Cone of Cold does not? But the question why some spells interact with environment and some don't is a matter for another discussion.
Cone of Cold actually does freeze things. Granted it's been limited at this point to only freezing them upon death. But at the point that you can obtain Cone of Cold on a wizard it is a rather devestating close range spell not unknown for outright killing people. And Frozen Corpses are good for shattering to ensure difficulty with Resurrecting dead invidividuals (it gets messy and tends to force use of higher level spells of such nature).
Other Cold Spells tend to have effects like either making difficult terrain or lowering movement speed as more traditional affects that tend to come with them.
So it's not entirely that spells like Cone of Cold don't do it but in general there are other somewhat narrowed effects tied to different elements. Effects that have the same kind of Cognitive dissonence when you change their elements but keep all their secondary effects the same. Acid and Fire are actually the two that most closely do the same type of effects since they both tend to cause some kind of item destruction potentially and continued damage.
"Things" in this instance means creatures only. It does not interact with objects whatsoever which is part of my issue with many spells in 5e.
Water freezes in 0C in normal atmosphere, there are numerous instances where in extreme low temperatures people pour water outside and it basically instantly freezes but I am supposed to believe that cold so extreme that it does 8d8 points of damage is not able to freeze a glass of water?
Things like Lightning Bolt vs. Chain Lightning where one of them can't destroy a window but set hay on fire while the other can destroy a window but can't set hay on fire.
I get it that 5e is a game system and it must have simplified rules and I don't oppose some simplification in that manner. But when someone has a group of players like I do, who are intelligent people but quite new to DND, it is hard to sell it to them. They try to follow their common sense and don't understand why some spells can do this but not that even though they should. So I usually improvise.
There are spells that work on creatures only and it makes sense - Illusion and Enchantment spells are perfect examples. But there is zero reason beside arbitrary simplicity that spells that produce real life effects can't interact with non-creatures. In order to make it simple, there should be a note in the Spellcasting section that the DM is free to adjust the spells to promote creativity.
How am I supposed to explain to my Druid player that she can cast Grasping Vine and produce a real world effect (creating a physical vine) and target a creature but not an object on the ground? "Because the spell says 'creatures' and the sword you are trying to pick with your vine is not a creature"?
Okay, rant over :D
If your a DM you can always have Cone of Cold do more to things. But with the exception of certain things that become brittle or water becoming frozen. There is a lot of things that cold doesn't actively affect until temperatures get extreme.
As for Lightning Bolt. Keep in mind that it has been toned down for a very long time. The Version that made it truely iconic is way back in 2nd edition and that version not only ricocheted off walls meaning more potential damage than a fireball (and even potentially killing yourself) but it also busted through things like doors and windows and even could potentially penetrate certain thicknesses of stone.
Cone of Cold is another spell that as I recall got toned down some time back before even 5e got hold of it and used to basically freeze pretty much everything it touched unless you made your save.
it's sad that some of these things got stripped out so long ago that many dont' even know what some of the older versions were like. Or just how downplayed and left out some details about them are and why they might do what they do.
RAW it would I think. That's the part what this means IMO " Damage types have no rules of their own, but other rules, such as damage resistance, rely on the types." Fire does not have a rule that it ignites things. Fireball does, so a fireball that was turned to ice would still ignite things. Its freaking stupid, they should have come up with core rules on what things meant. And yes I'd tell any player who thought his ice ball should set things on fire, no.
Scroll up and read our replies.
No reason to deny it, it's super cool to throw a iceball that freezes things and slowly shatters it over time. In this context all "burning" means is the the objects slowly become not-objects, so you can reflavor that as basically anything, and it doesn't make the spell any more or less effective. Alternatively, according to Fateless, ice igniting things has always been a thing in previous editions with coldfire.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
Actually now that I have read the description of Fireshield for AD&D, I'd like a concrete example of coldfire igniting things in previous editions. Because Fireshield made to protect from cold and deal cold damage is just a visual effect (which I am fine with) but has zero reference that it can actually ignite anything.
Again, not talking about the visual of blue flames emanating cold, I am talking about specific "can I burn this pile of wood with coldfire?" I don't think it works that way.
Remember how you complained that not everything of the same element Reacted with objects the same way. Read through Fire shield Again. A Warm Fire shield that did fire damage didn't actually set anything on fire either. your complaining that you don't think it works that way because the fire is blue and cold. But it's part of the same issue that the fire created by it's red version can't do it either. now you could come to the conclusion that it's hot enough to hurt somebody but not hot enough to light anything on fire without sustained contact (A trait that is actually true with some temperatures of fire in real life mind you).
But there were actually other cold fire spells in 2nd edition. if i had access to my spell compendiums right now i could spend hours going through them and dig some of them up. many of them were actually quite rare. But other than cold fire usually causing cold damage the spells had a bit of variety of entire effects that they were capable of. Something that you could actually find if you had the resources in 2nd edition was actually fireballs that worked in a few different elements as actual official spells. one of them was actually an explosion of lightning just as an example that i can remember. But it really is hard to remember them all considering that the full 4 book spell compendium of pretty much all of the spells in second edition has something like 20k spells in total if not more than that. Though at this point the 2nd edition spell compendiums seem to be a rather rare resource as well.
If all spells reacted to the surrounding environment exclusively by RAW, every spell description would be 7 paragraphs long which would be terrible for the game in multiple ways.
Cone of Cold can totally freeze a glass of water if you want it to do so. Of course it can. It can turn a liquid surface into ice for 2d4 rounds if you want it to do so. The DM is encouraged to do stuff like this. It's just massively easier to offload that kind of thing onto the DM's brain rather than trying to anticipate every interaction in the spell block as if you're coding something for a video game.
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
Its not the spell where you put it, you put the rule under fire damage. Something like fire damage in excess of a unattended flammables object damage threshold ignites the object. For every 10 points of damage water will be frozen to a depth of 1 inch, electricity conducts through water, for every die of damage electricity damage when it strikes water becomes a radius area of effect of 1 foot etc. Heck even just a general comment, fire damage is fire, the DM can add additional effects based on what they think is appropriate to the situation. But the actual opposite is true, they went out of their way to make it clear that unless it is in the spell description, the spell just would not do it and this would be a house rule if the DM were to use logic. Nothing wrong with house rules, but it does change the feel of it rules wise.
its a good thing it only damaging spells for if the order of scribes had the ability to change all of the spell with all of the other spells they know then that will be busted as hell for they can take a fire ball and turn it into a -ball of healing- or a -ball of hast-
are there any restrictions on how many times a day an order of scribes wizard can change element?
IIRC no. The only restriction is making sure the spell slot level matches up with the level of spell that has the damage type you want.
Four-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!