Rule question on adding (elemental) damage

[Waazraath]

Some (sub)classes have te ability to add (elemental) damage to a spell, like the Draconic sorcerer, the Celestial Warlock, Evoker wizard, etc. Often this is prhased, even after the errata, as "when you cast a spell"; does this mean it only works on spells that do instantaneous damage, like Fireball or Booming Blade? Would it not work on a Searing Smite, for example, or a Fire Shield, Wall of Fire, etc?

[Dork_Forge]

I think RAW it'll only apply to instananous spells or duration spells that do damage at the time of cast (like Wall of Fire can).


RAI this is underwhelming to say the least if true

RAF not at my table!

[Waazraath]

I think RAW it'll only apply to instananous spells or duration spells that do damage at the time of cast (like Wall of Fire can).


RAI this is underwhelming to say the least if true

RAF not at my table!

Yeah, that's what I'm afraid of =/

I was thinking about some paladin/sorcerer/warlock builds utilizing this, with +5 on damage triggering 2 times on both GFB and Searing Smite, the +20 on damage (GFB with +5 from Draconic, +5 from Celestial, and again on the bonus action smite spell) might be worth it to put effort in the concept, especially if the bonus damage would also trigger on defensive spells like Fire Shield. Even then, it wouldn't be great or maybe even good, given the opportunity cost to make it work, but you could build something that would work. But if you can't get the bonus damage to other spells, not even a spell like Searing Smite... hell nope :(

[Dork_Forge]

Yeah, that's what I'm afraid of =/

I was thinking about some paladin/sorcerer/warlock builds utilizing this, with +5 on damage triggering 2 times on both GFB and Searing Smite, the +20 on damage (GFB with +5 from Draconic, +5 from Celestial, and again on the bonus action smite spell) might be worth it to put effort in the concept, especially if the bonus damage would also trigger on defensive spells like Fire Shield. Even then, it wouldn't be great or maybe even good, given the opportunity cost to make it work, but you could build something that would work. But if you can't get the bonus damage to other spells, not even a spell like Searing Smite... hell nope :(

I wouldn't be discouraged too much, you can still get it into a workable state RAW and I'm sure your DM would be willing to hear you out at least given the high level of investment this would take.

[quindraco]

Some (sub)classes have te ability to add (elemental) damage to a spell, like the Draconic sorcerer, the Celestial Warlock, Evoker wizard, etc. Often this is prhased, even after the errata, as "when you cast a spell"; does this mean it only works on spells that do instantaneous damage, like Fireball or Booming Blade? Would it not work on a Searing Smite, for example, or a Fire Shield, Wall of Fire, etc?

All three will unequivocally work when casting Wall of Fire on the turn you cast it, since Wall of Fire hurts people it appears on top of.

Evocation Wizards don't have that wording you're worried about. For them in particular, it's very clear that you can cast Wall of Fire and "sit" on the ability if you want, waiting to add your intelligence modifier until you're ready - it can be added to any 1 damage roll.

Celestial Warlock and Draconic Sorcerer both have the "when you cast" wording, but I don't think it has any rules bearing here in terms of your ability to "sit" on the extra damage. At worst, your DM might rule you have to choose which roll when you cast, like a Readied action. That strikes me as specious; I think any DM in practice would let either one hold their ability in abeyance just as an Evocation Wizard can.

[Waazraath]

What I'm curious about: this can't be the first time this comes up? Has this not been discussed here before, or ruled about by Crawford or sage advise or whatever? I mean, it seems like a pretty obvious question for anybody playing such a subclass, even without stacking them, and the wording isn't exactly clear...

[Unoriginal]

"When you cast a spell" does not imply immediacy.

That is to say, if you cast a spell that would do damage in 10 turns, you'd still be in the "when you cast a spell add damage" situation.

On the other hand, it does mean that the damage will only be added one time.

[Waazraath]

Thanks for the replies all. I /want/ the people who say it does add to the damage (though only once) to be right, even though it isn't how I read it in the first place. Any other takers, new arguments?