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

[Maxperson]

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."


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

The damage types section tells you were it appears. It appears in attacks, offensive spells, and other harmful effects. All other places it's not an actual damage type, but is instead a rule that triggers around a damage type.

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.

It's the common reading of the Damage Types section, which is what 5e is written around.

 

[auburn2]

The damage types section tells you were it appears. It appears in attacks, offensive spells, and other harmful effects. All other places it's not an actual damage type, but is instead a rule that triggers around a damage type.

It's the common reading of the Damage Types section, which is what 5e is written around.

No the damage type section tells you what damage type is, not where it appears.

5E is also written around being open and flexible. Your interpretation nerfs this subclass in terms of roleplay and takes away virtually all the creativity you can put into your offensive damaging spells. The whole point of the subclass is to add flavor and variety to their offensive spells. When considering the common reading and design of 5e, what purpose would it serve for the writers to limit it like you say they are?

 

[Dausuul]

The damage types section tells you were it appears. It appears in attacks, offensive spells, and other harmful effects. All other places it's not an actual damage type, but is instead a rule that triggers around a damage type.

It's the common reading of the Damage Types section, which is what 5e is written around.

"Common reading" is what people say when they don't have anything in the rules to back up their position. You're just asserting without evidence that everybody reads it the way you do, which is plainly not the case or there wouldn't be an argument.

The word "appears" is nowhere defined in the Damage Types section. As far as I know, the Order of the Scribe is the first time any 5E mechanic has ever made reference to whether a damage type "appears" somewhere. The idea that there even is a "common reading" for a brand-new concept is silly.

 

[Maxperson]

No the damage type section tells you what damage type is, not where it appears.

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.

5E is also written around being open and flexible. Your interpretation nerfs this subclass in terms of roleplay and takes away virtually all the creativity you can put into your offensive damaging spells

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

 

[fearsomepirate]

5e's flexibility is around things that are intentionally open-ended, like when to call for an ability check, or how enemies respond to Suggestion. It's not open-ended around what type of damage a spell does. In this case, imprecision in the wording is accidental, and while I tend to think Maxperson is right, this is the sort of thing Sage Advice is usually good for clearing up and usually gets fixed in an errata if the designers feel it's unclear.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

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?

 

[Maxperson]

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?

That's not the issue. They're trying to cheese the ability to allow a Fireball or something to do slashing damage, because Stoneskin mentions resistance to slashing damage. Stoneskin has no damage types to fuel that ability.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

That's not the issue. They're trying to cheese the ability to allow a Fireball or something to do slashing damage, because Stoneskin mentions resistance to slashing damage. Stoneskin has no damage types to fuel that ability.

Oh.... in that case.... Inconceivable! Only bludgeoning and piercing are available for 4th level fireballs, folks. Move on please.

 

[fearsomepirate]

That's not the issue. They're trying to cheese the ability to allow a Fireball or something to do slashing damage, because Stoneskin mentions resistance to slashing damage. Stoneskin has no damage types to fuel that ability.

How many monsters that resist fire, but not nonmagical slashing even are there? Hellhounds and...? It seems like a purely academic exercise, since Magic Missile does force damage. I guess if a player wanted to use his class ability to do nonmagical slashing against a Helmed Horror, the sheer weirdness of this would make me wonder what sort of dark secrets he was hiding.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The concept of rolling damage after ascertaining a hit or saving throw was inserted into D&D before I was born. Despite rumors to the contrary, I am not the ghost of Gary Gygax.



I have admitted you were correct several times now. You just simply refuse to accept my admission and move on. I mistakenly overlooked the bonus action needed to place Hex, and attempted to move on to discuss something more realistic than your white room with the defenseless HP cube in it, such as the actual adventure I ran. I doubt you are deliberately misrepresenting the state of affairs, but it appears you are so angry as to render yourself incapable of actually reading any of my responses. Apparently you're stuck on this idea that anybody who overlooks an action economy issue when briefly scanning the rules of a class to respond to a white-roomer is unqualified to talk about D&D.

Feel free to continue thinking that. Since you see me as too dumb to talk to, and I see you as too focused on contrived abstractions and internet spitting contests, I guess we're done interacting.

I ran numbers for the Eldritch Knight and the Warlock, the latter both with and without a +2 item. These numbers are for anyone else who is curious about the topic.

Fighter: +9 to hit, d8+19 to damage, target AC 19 (+2 to hit and +4 to damage from items)
Sorlock: +10 to hit, d10+5 damage (base), target AC 19

View attachment 134006

What we can see here is that, as with a normal Warlock, the Sorlock hits approximately as hard as a Fighter. Of course, it's more difficult to pull of a QHEB than an Action Surge, but on the other hand, a QEB can be done much more often. What makes this broken and why I banned it is the Sorlock additionally has a large complement of full caster spells (i.e. he can cast Twinned Banish or Quickened Cone of Cold) in addition to whatever frontloaded Warlock pact bonus he chooses (Hexblade being egregiously bad due to Hexblade's Curse and Hex Warrior). In my opinion, losing a single high-level spell slot hardly balances this out.

Since I am always open to the possibility I made a mistake or overlooked a meaningful detail, here is the code:

AnyDice

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

anydice.com

Um, your code has an error. You have, as the first check: if die roll + mod is equal to or greater than 20, score double die damage plus bonus (to put it in cleartext). This creates a hell of a lot more crits rolls than there should be, increasing the rate to 55% crits for the EBs and 50% for the fighter. This is violently skewing your results. If you fix this to if die roll = 20 only, then the non-surge fighter is better than all the non-quickened EBs, and the surge fighter is best overall.

That said, it still shows that EB has a very respectable damage outlay.