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

[Mort]

At some point JC may comment on it.

And the people who disagree would say his ruling is just wrong, ignore it, and do it the way they want.

I find the whole concept of arguing whether "it's officially RAW" as silly unless it's something like adventure's league and even then it's usually not worth it. Do what you think is best/ most fun for your table.

Obviously arguing about "what is best"/what's fun is what threads like this are about.

 

[Deset Gled]

I find the whole concept of arguing whether "it's officially RAW" as silly unless it's something like adventure's league and even then it's usually not worth it. Do what you think is best/ most fun for your table.

I truly enjoy a good bout of rules lawyer-ing, now and again.

This thread has not been a particularity satisfying round of rules lawyer-ing.

 

[Maxperson]

Slashing, Bludgeoning and peircing damage type "appears" in stoneskin.

No they don't. Not once. Words saying slashing damage are not a damage type. Especially when they directly say "resistance to." Damage types only appear in spells that do damage.

From page 196 of the PHB.

"DAMAGE TYPES
Different attacks, damaging spells, and other harmful
effects deal different types of damage. Damage types ·
have no rules of their own, but other rules, such as
damage resistance, rely on the types."

It doesn't get clearer than that. Stone skin is not an attack, damage spell or other harmful effect.

The description of the class says nothing about the substitution spell needing to deal a damage type or even have a damage type, it says the damage type must appear in the spell.

Strict RAW that is pretty clear IMO.

The debate is on RAI. IMO if they did not intend it I don't think they would have used the word "appear" because the sentence is awkward with the word appear in it and I would think they would changed that to "......damage type dealt by another spell....". They intentionally used the word appear instead of making a easier to read and more straightforward description.

At some point JC may comment on it.

He doesn't need to comment on it. He already wrote a clear description in the PHB of what damage types are and they ain't Stoneskin

 

[Paul Farquhar]

There are a few spells that are more edge case than Stoneskin though, we have already mentioned 3 - Absorb Elements (can only do the damage if it first receives the damage), Magic Weapon (does whatever the weapon does), and Alter Self.

 

[Maxperson]

There are a few spells that are more edge case than Stoneskin though, we have already mentioned 3 - Absorb Elements (can only do the damage if it first receives the damage), Magic Weapon (does whatever the weapon does), and Alter Self.

Alter Self and Absorb Elements at least are designed to be able to do damage. I'd rule that those were acceptable spells for a damage type. Magic Weapon doesn't ever do damage, though. It just enabled something else that does damage to get through resistance. That one would fail in my book.

 

[auburn2]

No they don't. Not once. Words saying slashing damage are not a damage type. Especially when they directly say "resistance to." Damage types only appear in spells that do damage.

From page 196 of the PHB.

"DAMAGE TYPES
Different attacks, damaging spells, and other harmful
effects deal different types of damage. Damage types ·
have no rules of their own, but other rules, such as
damage resistance, rely on the types."

It doesn't get clearer than that. Stone skin is not an attack, damage spell or other harmful effect.

He doesn't need to comment on it. He already wrote a clear description in the PHB of what damage types are and they ain't Stoneskin

Respectfully I think you need to consider the word appear. You are right words saying slashing damage does not make stoneskin a damage type, but the spell does not have to have a damage type to be used for this feature. All it says it is the damage type has to appear.

A damage type "appears" any place it is mentioned in any context at all. Damage type appears on page 196 of the PHB, it appears in the weapons table, it appears in your post above. If it similarly appears in a spell in your spellbook you can use it. It really doesn't get clearer than that.

 

[Maxperson]

Respectfully I think you need to consider the word appear. You are right words saying slashing damage are not a damage type, but the spell does not have to have a damage type to be used, It does not say the spell used has to have the damage type or deal that damage type, all it says it is has to appear.

It doesn't just say, "when these words appear." It says, when, "You can replace a damage type with a TYPE(meaning damage type) that appears in another spell." I just showed you were damage types appear in attacks, OFFENSIVE spells, and other harmful effects.

If you can get your DM to accept you cheesing the system like that, more power to you, but RAW does not support you in this.

A damage type "appears" any place it is mentioned in any context at all.

Not according to RAW. I just showed you under Damage Types where they appear.

 

[auburn2]

There are a few spells that are more edge case than Stoneskin though, we have already mentioned 3 - Absorb Elements (can only do the damage if it first receives the damage), Magic Weapon (does whatever the weapon does), and Alter Self.

I would not allow magic weapon because a damage type does not appear in that spell. I don't think this is debatable either, all it says is it has a +1 to attack and damage rolls.

 

[auburn2]

It doesn't just say, "when these words appear." It says, when, "You can replace a damage type with a TYPE(meaning damage type) that appears in another spell." I just showed you were damage types appear in attacks, OFFENSIVE spells, and other harmful effects.

If you can get your DM to accept you cheesing the system like that, more power to you, but RAW does not support you in this.

Not according to RAW. I just showed you under Damage Types where they appear.

It is not cheese it is how it is intended and I can't think of any reason for a narrower interpretation. Why would they make it so fewer spells could be used. That makes no sense.

The words you are bolding are what I am using to make my case. Another damage type that appears. It doesn't say that is dealt, it doesn't say that is part of the spell, it says appears.

The whole idea is the awakened spellbook you have is rewriting the laws of magic on the fly and bending them to your will, but now you are saying he can only do that if it is a spell that causes damage? If that is true why doesn't the description say that.

 

[Dausuul]

A damage type "appears" any place it is mentioned in any context at all. Damage type appears on page 196 of the PHB, it appears in the weapons table, it appears in your post above. If it similarly appears in a spell in your spellbook you can use it. It really doesn't get clearer than that.

I agree. If the ability had meant "a spell that can deal damage of that type," it would have said so. "Appears" is a very peculiar word choice in this context, and I can't see any other intended meaning than "contains a reference in the text to that damage type."

Not according to RAW. I just showed you under Damage Types where they appear.

We are not arguing over the definition of "damage type," we are arguing over the definition of the word "appears."

If you can find a place where RAW defines the word "appears," that would end the argument, but you have not done that, and I'm pretty sure you can't because it ain't there.