D&D (2024) Celestial Warlock's Radiant Soul got a buff

[ezo]

You need to check your basics.

<snip>

What part of this:

That's as much effort as I am going to put into this. If the intent of the designers was otherwise, it will become clear when they address this, and they will adjust the wording accordingly. When they have something that applies in this manner, they do more to "spell things out (no pun intended)".

don't you understand???

 

[ezo]

At the most trivial you are wrong that you have to cast the spell on your turn; Hellish Rebuke is a spell you cast on someone else's turn but gets the extra damage. And gets it even if you cast a different fire spells on your turn.

This point I'll happily concede. I was more focused on spells cast during your turn.

But yeah, I know this.

 

[Neonchameleon]

What part of this:

don't you understand???

The part where I agreed not to leave other people with your incorrect take as the final word of the exchange. You are entirely willing to say that something's the last thing you have to say (and I encourage it and have learned over the last decade to practice what I preach here; I speak from experience when I say that getting in endless arguments is not good for your mental health). But when you disengage you are explicitly leaving the last word to the other person.

 

[ezo]

The part where I agreed not to leave other people with your incorrect take as the final word of the exchange.

Except when you are mistaken, as I have shown, and leaving others with your incorrect understanding.

However, you are compelling me to explain so others will not be similarly mislead as you have been. Don't feel badly about it--you are far from the first to not have a complete grasp on the particulars of English tenses; it is the worst part of teaching the language to others, frankly speaking.

Text In Question:
"Once per turn, when a spell you cast deals Radiant or Fire damage, you can add your Charisma modifier to that spell's damage against one of the spell's targets."

Cast (Simple Present Tense): Use for fact or habit.
Once per turn (the current turn), when a spell you cast (simple present) deals Radiant or Fire damage (the complete trigger -- on the current turn), you add....

Anything that is triggered on that turn happens then and there and is done. A spell you cast IS part of the trigger. The spell is cast (simple present) and deals (simple present) additional damage.

Cast (Simple Past Tense): for a completed activity that happened in the past.
Once per turn (the current turn), when a spell you cast (simple past) deals Radiant or Fire damage (the complete trigger -- completed on a past turn), you add....

Makes no sense at all. A spell you already cast (completed activity) does not benefit on the current turn when it deals damage (present activity). The complete trigger is a spell you cast deals Radiant or Fire Damage. You are confusing the present tense "deals" with the action of casting the spell. It creates a disagreement of tenses for the spell to be cast (simple past) and deals (simple present) damage in the triggering event.

Have Cast (Present Perfect Tense): for an action that began in the past. (Often, the action continues into the present.)
Once per turn (the current turn), when a spell you have cast (present perfect) deals Radiant or Fire damage (the complete trigger -- on the current turn), you add...

"Have cast" (present perfect) represents an action that began in the past and (in this case like wall of fire) continues into the present, and it works with the simple present tense of "deals" without disagreement of tenses. If the spell does not continue into the present (subsequent turns like burning hands), then it applies only on the turn it was cast.

If they had intended for the damage to be applied on subsequent turns, they would have specified that. "You continue to add X damage each turn the chosen target takes damage from this spell" or something.

I hope you enjoyed your English grammar lesson for the day.

You are entirely willing to say that something's the last thing you have to say (and I encourage it and have learned over the last decade to practice what I preach here; I speak from experience when I say that getting in endless arguments is not good for your mental health)

Yes I am willing, but you keep interpretting it incorrectly so I have to continue to correct you...

However, I cannot explain it more clearly than I have above. Feel free to disagree with me, but don't claim I am wrong when I have shown why the Present Perfect tense would be needed to create the interpretation you are looking for.

The Simple Present "cast" is the only interpretation that works with the text as written without creating a disagreement in tenses. The Simple Past "cast" creates the disagreement in tenses and does not work as written.

I truly hope that clears up this issue. If their intent was otherwise, they will let us know, change the text, or clarify it in some other way (hopefully!). It is, unfortunately, one of the worst pitfalls of "natural language" when most people don't correctly know how English grammar works and confuse it with spoken use. I see it all the time--daily.

Concerning the power of the feature, itself, it is not weak even given the proper interpretation of the text. You not only gain Resistance to Radiant damage, but can bump your damage spells a bit, even on other peoples' turns if you cast a spell then. Tier 2 subclass features are not typically strong, and this is middle of the road IMO.

As I have stated above, allowing it to work on subsequent turns won't break anything and might have been their intent, however what they wrote doesn't actually support that.

But when you disengage you are explicitly leaving the last word to the other person.

Fine, you can have the last word. Hopefully it will be "Oh, okay, I see it now."

If not, well then we will agree to disagree, and others can read both explainations and accept whichever they find most likely to be correct.

Cheers.

 

[Blue]

There was nothing preventing them sticking with the old wording as they did with so much. I can therefore only conclude that the change was intentional.

I had a similar point in another thread, where two changes in different places were made. It was pointed out that a brevity pass was done to the rules. Now, I don't think it applies here, but just a heads up that "they could have left it" isn't as strong an argument when you know they were also rewriting for other purposes as well.

 

[Blue]

Have Cast (Present Perfect Tense): for an action that began in the past. (Often, the action continues into the present.)
Once per turn (the current turn), when a spell you have cast (present perfect) deals Radiant or Fire damage (the complete trigger -- on the current turn), you add...

"Have cast" (present perfect) represents an action that began in the past and (in this case like wall of fire) continues into the present, and it works with the simple present tense of "deals" without disagreement of tenses. If the spell does not continue into the present (subsequent turns like burning hands), then it applies only on the turn it was cast.

If they had intended for the damage to be applied on subsequent turns, they would have specified that. "You continue to add X damage each turn the chosen target takes damage from this spell" or something.

Quick question: if "have cast" began in the past, then wouldn't it negate the most common usage of the ability - damage when you cast the spell? Fireball, like most damaging spells, is instantaneous. There literally can be no part of something that is instantaneous that is "the past" yet damage is being applied.

So wouldn't that cancel that out as a possible wording?

 

[ezo]

Quick question: if "have cast" began in the past, then wouldn't it negate the most common usage of the ability - damage when you cast the spell? Fireball, like most damaging spells, is instantaneous. There literally can be no part of something that is instantaneous that is "the past" yet damage is being applied.

So wouldn't that cancel that out as a possible wording?

No, but that is an excellent point to bring up!

Have Cast (Present Perfect Tense): for an action that began in the past. (Often, the action continues into the present.)
Once per turn (the current turn), when a spell you have cast (present perfect) deals Radiant or Fire damage (the complete trigger -- on the current turn), you add...

"Have cast" (present perfect) represents an action that began in the past and (in this case like wall of fire) continues into the present, and it works with the simple present tense of "deals" without disagreement of tenses. If the spell does not continue into the present (subsequent turns like burning hands), then it applies only on the turn it was cast.

The turn you cast on you still finish casting before you apply damage. The spell effect doesn't trigger until the casting is complete--thus in the past. The Present Perfect tense is for an action begun in the past (earlier that same turn before the damage is applied). It is also used when the action continue into the present (i.e. subseequent turns).

It is really meant to cover both situtations and why it should be used if that is WotC's intent. If that was the wording, I would argue WotC meant for the additional damage to be applicable on later turns, such as with wall of fire.

 

[Selas]

I am going to have to agree with the OP on this, because the change seems to have been made deliberately by WotC so it could apply in both scenarios; otherwise, they would have left it unchanged from the old version. A key piece of evidence for this is how the Draconic Sorcery Elemental Affinity extra damage is still worded like in 2014, mirroring the old Radiant Soul.

Elemental Affinity (2014)
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. At the same time, you can spend 1 sorcery point to gain resistance to that damage type for 1 hour.

Elemental Affinity (2024)
Your draconic magic has an affinity with a damage type associated with dragons. Choose one of those types: Acid, Cold, Fire, Lightning, or Poison.

You have Resistance to that damage type, and when you cast a spell that deals damage of that type, you can add your Charisma modifier to one damage roll of that spell.

Meanwhile, the change below seems very deliberate, and changes the meaning of the rule:

Level 6: Radiant Soul
Starting at 6th level, your link to the Celestial allows you to serve as a conduit for radiant energy. You have resistance to radiant damage, and when you cast a spell that deals radiant or fire damage, you can add your Charisma modifier to one radiant or fire damage roll of that spell against one of its targets.

VS

Radiant Soul (2024)
Your link to your patron allows you to serve as a conduit for radiant energy. You have Resistance to Radiant damage. Once per turn, when a spell you cast deals Radiant or Fire damage, you can add your Charisma modifier to that spell’s damage against one of the spell’s targets.

You can still claim the text is a bit ambiguous, but this is the only feature that has been reworded in this way. All the other subclasses that had a feature in 2014 which used the phrase "when you cast a spell" still use it the same in 2024, except the new Radiant Soul. This is why I believe Radiant Soul can now apply to lingering spells, but you can't apply it anymore to more than one spell casting on the same turn like the old one.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Except when you are mistaken, as I have shown, and leaving others with your incorrect understanding.

However, you are compelling me to explain so others will not be similarly mislead as you have been. Don't feel badly about it--you are far from the first to not have a complete grasp on the particulars of English tenses; it is the worst part of teaching the language to others, frankly speaking.

Just to ask a simple question: is English your first language? Because although your English is generally pretty good you are reasoning like someone who has learned English from books and as a second language rather than a native English speaker who actually uses the language. Or you are reasoning like one of the Victorian prescriptivists who thought that Latin was a superior language and wanted to make English more like Latin, therefore came up with and followed rules like not splitting infinitives.

You know what they call a verb that the normal rules do not apply to? An irregular verb. And guess what? "Cast" is an irregular verb. The "rules" of English do not control how English is used. They describe how it is normally used. And as an irregular verb "cast" does not follow the normal guidelines. So your attempt to say that things would be different if Cast was a regular verb are irrelevant because cast is an irregular verb that follows its own rules because the past and present.

In specific cast can refer to the simple present tense or the simple past tense. Therefore in any sentence using the word 'cast' that takes no other measure to distinguish the possible tenses it applies to all possibilities or combinations of possibilities of present and past tense.

Makes no sense at all. A spell you already cast (completed activity) does not benefit on the current turn when it deals damage (present activity).

This is actually untrue (but irrelevant). Once you have cast Guardian of Faith it remains until it's exhausted. You have cast it and it can still do damage on the current turn.

Have Cast (Present Perfect Tense): for an action that began in the past. (Often, the action continues into the present.)
Once per turn (the current turn), when a spell you have cast (present perfect) deals Radiant or Fire damage (the complete trigger -- on the current turn), you add...

That (or to be accurate where "the action continues into the present") is not when you would use the present perfect tense. You use a perfect tense for completed actions (that's what's perfect about them; they are done and unchangeable) but the consequences continue into the present. "The BBEG has set off the self destruct sequence which is why we need to run".

If you want to talk about actions that continue into the present with a regular verb you don't want the present perfect. You want the perfect progressive ("I have been correcting your grammar all day").

"Have cast" (present perfect) represents an action that began in the past and (in this case like wall of fire) continues into the present, and it works with the simple present tense of "deals" without disagreement of tenses. If the spell does not continue into the present (subsequent turns like burning hands), then it applies only on the turn it was cast.

The construction you're looking for for something ongoing is not "Have cast"; on its own that is the perfect tense and is completed. You're looking for "Have been casting". Of course this gets a little blurred with D&D basically using stop motion animation rather than continuous time.

If they had intended for the damage to be applied on subsequent turns, they would have specified that. "You continue to add X damage each turn the chosen target takes damage from this spell" or something.

Nope. If they had not intended for the damage to be applied on subsequent terms they would have specified that. By writing something like "when you cast a spell". Oh wait, they did that. And then deliberately changed it.

I hope you enjoyed your English grammar lesson for the day.

3/10. Could do better.

You're not the teacher in this lesson.

Yes I am willing, but you keep interpretting it incorrectly so I have to continue to correct you...

No you don't. You said you weren't continuing - and you were as incorrect about that as you are about grammar.

However, I cannot explain it more clearly than I have above. Feel free to disagree with me, but don't claim I am wrong when I have shown why the Present Perfect tense would be needed to create the interpretation you are looking for.

The Simple Present "cast" is the only interpretation that works with the text as written without creating a disagreement in tenses. The Simple Past "cast" creates the disagreement in tenses and does not work as written.

Nope. Because we need to go to much more basic grammar than perfect progressive tenses and present perfect tenses as applied to an actively irregular verb to see what agrees with what. You're failing to identify the subject of the sentence.

2014: and when [you] [cast] [a spell that deals radiant or fire damage], you add

In the 2014 version you are the subject doing the action and the action being checked for is casting.

2024: when [a spell you cast] deals Radiant or Fire damage

In the 2024 version the spell is the subject. And the action being checked for is dealing damage.

I truly hope that clears up this issue. If their intent was otherwise, they will let us know, change the text, or clarify it in some other way (hopefully!). It is, unfortunately, one of the worst pitfalls of "natural language" when most people don't correctly know how English grammar works and confuse it with spoken use. I see it all the time--daily.

Oh, I bet you see what you consider to be incorrect grammar all the time and sometimes you might even be right. But even when you think you are English grammar is descriptive not prescriptive.

Concerning the power of the feature, itself, it is not weak even given the proper interpretation of the text. You not only gain Resistance to Radiant damage,

Which is, depending on which monster manual you check, either the least common or the second least common damage type (the bottom two are thunder and radiant, with the order varying).

but can bump your damage spells a bit, even on other peoples' turns if you cast a spell then. Tier 2 subclass features are not typically strong, and this is middle of the road IMO.

Which damage spells are you actually bumping the damage of? Because you sure aren't gaining any power out of bumping the power of cantrips when you have Eldritch Blast (even if True Strike now probably is intended to provide a slightly inferior alternative). Which means that before level 11 unless you're going for a weird multiclass (or just normal coffeelock) you aren't using it more than twice per short rest other than as a "because I can avoid Eldritch Blast without losing too much round by round damage".

Adding insult to injury I think (I may be wrong) the only non-cantrip tier 1 or 2 warlock spells it applies to in the 2024 PHB are Hellish Rebuke (which is of course anti-thematic for celestial warlocks as well as not being great as an upcast), and Jallarzi's Storm of Radiance. Oh, and from the Celestial list Guiding Bolt (why are you upcasting that into a L3+ slot?) and Wall of Fire (and Guardian of Faith and Summon Celestial - but they don't do damage when you cast them).

This is why the 2014 version of the ability is awful. It doesn't synergise at all with the warlock package. If you were to give it to a cleric it would be pretty strong of course.

But you claim that tier 2 abilities are generally weak. So let's look at comparable ones; the other level 6 warlock abilities and other tier 2 damage abilities (and some damage-adjacent abilities). From the Warlock as what the ability should be competing with:

• Archfey: Misty Escape - you can Misty Step as a reaction - and you can either turn invisible or do AoE damage when you teleport. Not that weak.
• Fiend: Dark One's Own Luck: Add 1d10 to a saving throw (or ability check) after rolling as a free action Charisma modifier times per day. Not at all weak.
• GOOlock: Clairvoyant Combatant to force a saving throw or perma-advantage/disadvantage as a bonus action 1/short rest. Not at all weak for a weapon wielder or eldritch blaster.

Meanwhile we can instead compare it to level 6 extra damage abilities:

• Draconic Sorcerer L6: "and when you cast a spell that deals damage of that type, you can add your charisma modifier to one damage roll of that spell". This is massively superior to the 2014 warlock ability in two ways. The first is that if you use it on an AoE spell like fireball it adds to the damage against all targets. The second is that sorcerers do elemental damage with their cantrips and can pick from a wide range of elemental spells, meaning they can use this almost every turn in combat.
• Soulknife L9: Homing Strikes. Use psionic energy damage to turn a miss into a hit. Which can get a full sneak attack from a miss. This is big.
• Eldritch Knight L7: War Magic. Replace an attack with a cantrip. Pretty big as you can do it every turn.
• Stars Druid L10: An extra d8 on archer form. Again almost every turn. At least when you're interested in damage (and you can form-shift)
• War Cleric L6: Non concentration Spiritual Weapon with Channel Divinity. Is this really better than Guided Strike? Depends what your martials are hitting with.
• Valour Bard L6: Extra Attack. Do I really need to point out how much better this is?
• Berserker Barbarian L10: Retaliation. A reaction attack when someone next to you damages you. (You don't even have to be raging).

With the arguable exception of the war cleric every one of those is actually pretty good.

And just to emphasise a point the 2024 Draconic sorcerer uses wording that is almost identical to the old celestial warlock wording. The change therefore was a motivated one and wasn't done for consistency or reducing word count or they would have done the same with the sorcerer. It was a clearly intentional change. And to those of us with an actually correct understanding of English grammar the meaning is clear.

If not, well then we will agree to disagree, and others can read both explainations and accept whichever they find most likely to be correct.

There's only one plausible one. Only one that's simultaneously based on a correct understanding of the grammar involved, synergises with the celestial warlock abilities, and makes sense of the changes made.

 

[Selas]

And just to emphasise a point the 2024 Draconic sorcerer uses wording that is almost identical to the old celestial warlock wording. The change therefore was a motivated one and wasn't done for consistency or reducing word count or they would have done the same with the sorcerer. It was a clearly intentional change. And to those of us with an actually correct understanding of English grammar the meaning is clear.

Um, I had already pointed this out, but it doesn't hurt to do it again.

Just to ask a simple question: is English your first language? Because although your English is generally pretty good you are reasoning like someone who has learned English from books and as a second language rather than a native English speaker who actually uses the language. Or you are reasoning like one of the Victorian prescriptivists who thought that Latin was a superior language and wanted to make English more like Latin, therefore came up with and followed rules like not splitting infinitives.

Since you mention this, I want to point something out which seems to be related to it. If you translate the text verbatim from English to Spanish, you get a direct translation that also uses an infinitive verb to indicate the action, which provides the same interpretation as the English wording. In other words, even in Spanish the word "cast" applies in all possibilities or combinations of possibilities of present and past tense.