fearsomepirate
Hero
Story of D&D. "Why yes, I still have my 9th level slot. Two of them, in fact!"
D&D 5E Could a Sorcerer with a 1 Wizard dip fulfill everything unique about a wizard?
Story of D&D. "Why yes, I still have my 9th level slot. Two of them, in fact!"
MoonSong
Rules-lawyering drama queen but not a munchkin
in fact, I have all of the slots... Btw I haven't slept in a while...
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
I'm fairly certain that's a misinterpretation on his part. Stoneskin doesn't have a damage type. It RESISTS damage types. There's a difference. Offensive spells are the ones with damage types.
jgsugden
Legend
I said nothing about Legendary Resistance. You inserted it into the discussion after the fact. Reframing an argument so that you can attempt to win it when you were initially wrong is shady. I won't diatribe through the fabricated arguments you've inserted, but will generally address them with two broad statements: 1.) Yes, I see sorcerers use powerful spells in a variety of encounters. As they can rest, and have enough spell slots to upcharge some of their lower level slots to 5th level slots, I tend to see sorcerers cast a lot of powerful spells. 2.) If a foe has Legendary Resistance, you either need to burn through it or plan to never cast a spell on them. As so many people want to cast spells, burning through legendary resistances is usually going to happen - and thus needs to be done. We often see multiple third or fourth level spells tossed at powerful foes to burn out those resistances (unless there is a monk present - monks tend to quickly negate that legendary resistance).
The reason I was adamant in my response is that this showed a fundamental misunderstanding of very basic mechanics that would be self evident after any reasonable amount of play where the rules were followed. Despite making that mistake, you continue to insist that you are an authority on this matter and that your opinion, which is founded on a lack of understanding, needs to be heeded. We've all made mistakes. When we do, we need to back off.
And in the end: Compare Sorlock Damage to a Sharpshooter Archer (Fighter or Ranger). You brought up a 14th level PC. The 14th level fighter in one of my parties is an Elven Eldritch Knight. I don't have his character sheet in front of me, but his baseline is about 70 damage (3 attacks at +9 for d8 + 2 (bracers) + 2 (magic bow) + 5 (dexterity) + 10 (sharpshooter)) (Elven Accuracy feat as well to make sure of those hits). On top of that he adds spells like haste and enlarge (two of his non evocation/abjurations, although he also just took the Fey Touched Feat and added Hex.., I think and has been having the bard cast haste on him for a while- not sure as he has not cast the spells yet). If you want to do ranged damage, a sorlock is one option, but it is not the most effective one.
Yes, I agree. The ability swaps out damage types for other damage types not just words that happen to be in the description of another spell.
I will say though, it's not well worded (certainly not as clearly as it should be)- which is why I was surprised it was official content (in Tasha's) and not just UA.
Last edited:
fearsomepirate
Hero
Unspoken assumptions are still assumptions. If you are calculating your damage against a monster, you are assuming you hit it, regardless of whether you say, out loud, "I assume a hit."
No, it really doesn't. People make mistakes. I made a mistake, admitted it when you pointed it out, and you then proved yourself utterly incapable of moving on to discuss anything else, because what you want isn't to be right (I admitted you were right; a pure Sorc can do a nova once per day that a Sorlock can't quite match); what you want is for your white-room nova analysis against a defenseless hit point blob to end discussion. You're not getting that, and it's not because I "refuse to admit I'm wrong," it's because I think that sort of analysis is fundamentally uninformative. My main observations about the Sorlock can be condensed to:
1. EB is good enough that fewer resources spent than a pure Sorc (2x better than a cantrip at base, damages like a 4th-level spell when you spend a 1st-level slot), meaning metamagic and good spells are more readily available, more often.
2. Far more spell resources than a pure Warlock, plus CON proficiency, basically never has to choose between bringing Hex back up or being able to cast Banish/Fireball/etc again, i.e. can be as free with his spell spending as a normal Sorc while still doing at-will damage like a normal Warlock.
The once-per-day nova in the white room does not affect this picture in any way whatsoever.
Has the DM been generous or stingy with magic items for the Sorlock?
Last edited:
jgsugden
Legend
No. Telling people what they meant, what they assumed ... when you INSERT THE CONCEPT INTO THE CONVERSATION AFTER I SPOKE ... Just no.
You're not getting the point. You're trying to speak as if you have some expertise or deep understanding of the situation. Yet, your mistake is on an incredibly basic element that is self evident with any real experience.
If you went to a mechanic and asked them to fix your car, and they said, "Sure ... and boy does it need fixing. I dn't see the fifth wheel at all!" ... Not exactly confidence inspiring. But if you say, "Hey ... uhhh .. four wheels on cars, right?" and they say, "Look, I'm a mechanic, and I know that all cars have five wheels...." ... You're going to write them off and take your car elsewhere.
I pointed out your mistake. You doubled down on the mistake. You were sure you were right about a very basic and fundamental element ... and you were wrong. The house of your understanding is built on foundations of mud. Every ounce of your argument about the balance considerations are tainted by the undeniable proof that you don't understand how the situation you were describing works.
You dug the hole. You're still digging.
fearsomepirate
Hero
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
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
Last edited:
Only if your sole purpose is beating damage resistance. It won't "see you right" if you want the subclass to be varied and optioned and allow your fireball to be able to take 6 different damage forms and use a different damage type every time you cast it simply for flavor or to be cool.
I get that people think this is the RAI, but I think this interpretation works against some of the fundamental openess of 5e, and as you pointed out you only need 1 or 2 options to have something on hand to beat damage resistance anyway, so considering it does not make it OP, why would the writers restrict it like this?
Slashing, Bludgeoning and peircing damage type "appears" in stoneskin. 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.
Similar Threads
