D&D 5E Could a Sorcerer with a 1 Wizard dip fulfill everything unique about a wizard?

fearsomepirate said:

How many monsters that resist fire, but not nonmagical slashing even are there? Hellhounds and...?

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter. That's not the issue. And besides, it's a spell, so why wouldn't it be magical slashing damage? A magic sword with no plus does magical slashing damage just because it's magical. Spells are magical, so they would as well.

Thanks, that's why I share my code. Also, note that the Fighter has two magic items, while the Warlock has one. I don't actually think that's an unfair comparison, since Fighters tend to get more magic items than casters in any adventure I've seen.

Forget about the Sorlock for a second. The point is, Eldritch Blast is in the martial power tier. It's fundamentally against the ethos of 5e to get this kind of power via a 2-level dip. Can I 2-dip into Rogue and get 7 sneak attack dice? Can I 2-dip into Fighter and get 3 attacks? Can I 2-dip into Ranger and get a 2nd attack, Volley, and Colossus Slayer? No, of course not, and for good reason. So giving the full power of EB via a 2-dip is fundamentally unbalanced for the same reason. Like maybe you can find some feats or whatever to bring that rogue curve up to be 6.3% more powerful than Hexed Eldritch Blast, does it change anything? No. Because the point is the tier. The martial tier of at-will damage is 100%-200% more powerful than the caster tier, not 5%-10%, and it's important to maintain that. You shouldn't be able to 2-dip out of your tier.

Maxperson said:

It doesn't matter. That's not the issue. And besides, it's a spell, so why wouldn't it be magical slashing damage? A magic sword with no plus does magical slashing damage just because it's magical. Spells are magical, so they would as well.

Click to expand...

Oh, I know, I'm joking. But if some rules lawyer was going to push it, and I felt like humoring him, I would point out that the damage mentioned in Stoneskin is very specifically nonmagical. (Note: I never feel like humoring rules laywers)

fearsomepirate said:

Oh, I know, I'm joking. But if some rules lawyer was going to push it, and I felt like humoring him, I would point out that the damage mentioned in Stoneskin is very specifically nonmagical. (Note: I never feel like humoring rules laywers)

Click to expand...

That went completely over my head

fearsomepirate said:

Thanks, that's why I share my code. Also, note that the Fighter has two magic items, while the Warlock has one. I don't actually think that's an unfair comparison, since Fighters tend to get more magic items than casters in any adventure I've seen.

Forget about the Sorlock for a second. The point is, Eldritch Blast is in the martial power tier. It's fundamentally against the ethos of 5e to get this kind of power via a 2-level dip. Can I 2-dip into Rogue and get 7 sneak attack dice? Can I 2-dip into Fighter and get 3 attacks? Can I 2-dip into Ranger and get a 2nd attack, Volley, and Colossus Slayer? No, of course not, and for good reason. So giving the full power of EB via a 2-dip is fundamentally unbalanced for the same reason. Like maybe you can find some feats or whatever to bring that rogue curve up to be 6.3% more powerful than Hexed Eldritch Blast, does it change anything? No. Because the point is the tier. The martial tier of at-will damage is 100%-200% more powerful than the caster tier, not 5%-10%, and it's important to maintain that. You shouldn't be able to 2-dip out of your tier.

View attachment 134053

AnyDice

AnyDice is an advanced dice probability calculator, available online. It is created with roleplaying games in mind.

anydice.com

Oh, I know, I'm joking. But if some rules lawyer was going to push it, and I felt like humoring him, I would point out that the damage mentioned in Stoneskin is very specifically nonmagical. (Note: I never feel like humoring rules laywers)

Click to expand...

This is very sensitive to the magic item bonus. Strip it, and the curves rearrange, with EB mostly in last place.

Not to argue the point that EB is meant to be on par with fighter damage output. The Warlock is pretty much all EB. Yes, it's not great that you can 2-dip Warlock and pick up it's main shtick, but if you had to wait more than 2 level in a main warlock for that to come online, that's a problem. My best solution for this is to fully silo warlock class abilities -- you can't metamagic warlock spells, and you can't convert warlock spell slots into sorcery points. Just like how caster levels don't combine, spellcasting for each is separate. Still gives access to the nice EB schtick, but removes potential quicken spam problems, and so leaves the multi with the usual multi problem -- lots of options, only one action.

Ovinomancer said:

My best solution for this is to fully silo warlock class abilities -- you can't metamagic warlock spells, and you can't convert warlock spell slots into sorcery points.

Click to expand...

I prefer to remove EB and Agonizing Blast, and replace both with a class feature: Force blast spell attack, dealing 1d10+Cha and granting additional blasts at warlock levels 5, 11, and 17. Solves the multiclass issue and eliminates the "invocation tax" of Agonizing Blast in one step.

Then Pact of the Blade changes this ability to a melee spell attack, along with granting medium armor and shield proficiency, and we've cleaned up hexblade cheese too.

Ovinomancer said:

This is very sensitive to the magic item bonus. Strip it, and the curves rearrange, with EB mostly in last place.

Not to argue the point that EB is meant to be on par with fighter damage output. The Warlock is pretty much all EB. Yes, it's not great that you can 2-dip Warlock and pick up it's main shtick, but if you had to wait more than 2 level in a main warlock for that to come online, that's a problem.

Click to expand...

You have to wait 5 levels to get Extra Attack from anyone else. I'd either make EB an Attack action or a straight class feature.

Swarmkeeper said:

I'd allow Stoneskin to altered by the Awakened Spellbook of the Scribe Wizard. I mean, if the player really wanted to be resistant to nonmagical slashing, piercing, and fire damage... um... sure... ok. Not a lot of nonmagical fire (or necrotic or cold or whatever) damage happening to 7th level characters so really that is kind of a waste of at least part of the 100gp diamond dust needed to cast the spell. Then again, maybe they need to run into a burning building to save a beloved pet?

Click to expand...

This is actually the key question to parsing this ability: "can I change Stoneskin to give me fire resistance*?"

Lets look at the text: "When you cast a wizard spell with a spell slot, you can temporarily replace its damage type...". The answer is no. Stoneskin does not have a damage type. There is no ambiguous word "appears" there.

The next part of the sentence is what is causing the confusion: "with a type that appears in another spell in your spellbook". This indicates that if you can replace A with B you can also replace B with A. If I know Alter Self and Acid Arrow I can create acid damage claws or I can shoot slashing damage arrows. It's either both or neither.

What the word "appears" does do is let you select any damage type when the spell has a choice. If use absorb elements to absorb cold damage, I can use this ability to replace the cold damage I would do back with force damage from my magic missile. Very useful, since creatures are often resistant to their own damage.


*note that 5e does not distinguish between magical and non-magical fire damage. Fire damage is fire damage. It also impossible for a spell to do non-magical damage of any type. Spells are, by definition, magic. See the sage advice on Hunter's Mark.

Paul Farquhar said:

This is actually the key question to parsing this ability: "can I change Stoneskin to give me fire resistance*?"

Lets look at the text: "When you cast a wizard spell with a spell slot, you can temporarily replace its damage type...". The answer is no. Stoneskin does not have a damage type. There is no ambiguous word "appears" there.

The next part of the sentence is what is causing the confusion: "with a type that appears in another spell in your spellbook". This indicates that if you can replace A with B you can also replace B with A. If I know Alter Self and Acid Arrow I can create acid damage claws or I can shoot slashing damage arrows. It's either both or neither.

What the word "appears" does do is let you select any damage type when the spell has a choice. If use absorb elements to absorb cold damage, I can use this ability to replace the cold damage I would do back with force damage from my magic missile. Very useful, since creatures are often resistant to their own damage.


*note that 5e does not distinguish between magical and non-magical fire damage. Fire damage is fire damage. It also impossible for a spell to do non-magical damage of any type. Spells are, by definition, magic. See the sage advice on Hunter's Mark.

Click to expand...

All great points. Thank you!

Now, about the bolded part - I'd say we have some RAW evidence that there is a distinction between magical fire and nonmagical fire and, therefore, implicitly there is magical fire damage and nonmagical fire damage (note, I'm not defending using Stoneskin with Awakened Spellbook, I'm just curious about exploring this assertion):

DMG p61: "Wind quickly extinguishes nonmagical open flames such as torches and campfires."
DMG p219: "While attuned to the artifact, nonmagical flames are extinguished within 30 feet of you."
PHB p197: "For example, if a creature has resistance to fire damage as well as resistance to all nonmagical damage, the damage of a nonmagical fire is reduced by half against the creature, not reduced by three-quarters."
MM p8: "Particular creatures are even resistant or immune to damage from nonmagical attacks (a magical attack is an attack delivered by a spell, a magic item, or another magical source)."
EGW p151: "Nonmagical fire can't burn here."
I believe there are more such examples in some adventures, but I think the point is sufficiently made.

Of course, the point is a bit moot (for now) as no current WotC-published monster has resistance or immunity to general nonmagical damage or to specific nonmagical damage that is not piercing, slashing, bludgeoning. Then again, that doesn't prevent a DM from homebrewing a monster that is resistant or immune to nonmagical fire damage, for example.

Then then again, this doesn't have much to do with the OP other than being loosely related to spells that a wizard may or may not be able to cast - so sorry about that!

Maxperson said:

That's simply not true. If it were true, there would be no mention of attacks, offensive spells and harmful effects. They would simply list off the damage types and be done with it.

Click to expand...

It is defining what a damage type is. It is not saying where a damage type appears. Following is the definition of appears, the section you quoted does not speak to appearance at all:

Appear: Come into sight; become visible or noticeable.

Now when those words "slashing damage" are in a spell description they do in fact "appear" there. They are visible there.

Maxperson said:

Not true. It's a SECOND LEVEL ability. It's not supposed to be as powerful as the cheese you are attempting.

Click to expand...

It is not powerful, that is the whole point. If it was OP there would be a reason to limit it like you say, but even doing it the way I am it is LESS powerful than several other wizard schools.

At SECOND LEVEL level I can pick up absorb elements and cast magic missile and instead of force damage I can do 1d4+1 lighting damage (or fire damage, or acid damage ...) .

There is nothing at all powerful about that! Especially since those other damages are resisted more than force damage. It is almost entirely flavor.

Same thing with using stoneskin for a fireball - yes that might be helpful against devils or red dragons, but lots of other damage types would too and in terms of metagaming it is not any better than other spells that could be used.

Finally, because the replacement spell has to be in your book and has to be the same level as the slot, this is not something that another caster could take a 2-level dip to use.

The fact that it is NOT very powerful is why it is one main reason it is difficult for me to believe they would limit it like you want to.

auburn2 said:

It is not powerful, that is the whole point. If it was OP there would be a reason to limit it like you say, but even doing it the way I am it is LESS powerful than several other wizard schools.

At SECOND LEVEL level I can pick up absorb elements and cast magic missile and instead of force damage I can do 1d4+1 lighting damage (or fire damage, or acid damage ...) .

There is nothing at all powerful about that! Especially since those other damages are resisted more than force damage. It is almost entirely flavor.

Same thing with using stoneskin for a fireball - yes that might be helpful against devils or red dragons, but lots of other damage types would too and in terms of metagaming it is not any better than other spells that could be used.

The fact that it is NOT very powerful is why it is one main reason it is difficult for me to believe they would limit it like you want to.

Click to expand...

What I'm saying is one, the way it is written, and two hardly more limiting than yours. So what if all you can do is sub any energy type for any other energy type. You can still get around almost any resistance that way. All you're losing is cheesing in a slashing damage fireball. Hell, you aren't even losing bludgeoning or piercing damage.