View Full Version : Empowered Metamagic and GFB
Empowered states:
“When you roll damage for a spell, you can spend 1 sorcery point to reroll a number of the damage dice up to your Charisma modifier (minimum of one). You must use the new rolls.”
However, what is “damage for a spell”?
If I cast GFB at level 5 (1d8 fire), while using a Shadow Blade (2d8 psychic), and have a Cha of 16, is the damage roll of the GFB “spell” 3d8 and you can reroll each die?
Arguments for all being included, as I see it, are:
1) it’s all one damage roll (like for Concentration purposes)
2) if GFB gets Counterspelled, there is no weapon attack, so the weapon attack is, indeed part of the spell, and therefore, part of the spell’s damage
3) certainly not gamebreaking or even optimized (Enpowered on a Fireball hitting 4 targets is much better than using it on GFB.
I see this as more of a 1 SP fee to help a crap damage roll at a time of need.
Thoughts?
PS: other interesting factors that could alter the thinking:
Would the same be true if using say a Flametongue instead of a SB?
Would Smite damage dice be included in the possible rerolls?
JNAProductions
2022-11-10, 01:51 PM
I'd say you can reroll the d8 fromGreenflame Blade but not the weapon dice. It's part of the spell, but not a direct part.
That being said, if a DM ruled you could, that'd be fine too. I don't think it'll break anything either way.
I'd say you can reroll the d8 fromGreenflame Blade but not the weapon dice. It's part of the spell, but not a direct part.
That being said, if a DM ruled you could, that'd be fine too. I don't think it'll break anything either way.
Do you mind expounding on why you think the weapon attack isn’t a direct part of the spell?
It’s certainly different than say the “Smite” spells (Searing, Blinding, etc), or Magic Weapon. Any of those spells can be Countered/nullified without affecting the weapon attack. I’d say that for those the spell damage is different than the weapon damage (Searing Smite’s “the attack deals an extra 1d6 fire damage” makes it clear, imo, this is an add on), but that’s different than how GFB/BB is written.
For GFB/BB the weapon attack is 100% part of the spell effect (at least as I see it): if the spell is Countered (or say attempted in an AMF) then you don’t have an attack.
Wondering what you’re seeing that I’m not, that leads you to that conclusion.
Keravath
2022-11-10, 03:03 PM
Do you mind expounding on why you think the weapon attack isn’t a direct part of the spell?
It’s certainly different than say the “Smite” spells (Searing, Blinding, etc), or Magic Weapon. Any of those spells can be Countered/nullified without affecting the weapon attack. I’d say that for those the spell damage is different than the weapon damage (Searing Smite’s “the attack deals an extra 1d6 fire damage” makes it clear, imo, this is an add on), but that’s different than how GFB/BB is written.
For GFB/BB the weapon attack is 100% part of the spell effect (at least as I see it): if the spell is Countered (or say attempted in an AMF) then you don’t have an attack.
Wondering what you’re seeing that I’m not, that leads you to that conclusion.
I'm not sure of the other person's reasoning ... but here is mine.
The weapon attack is the material component of the spell. The weapon damage is coincidental and done by the material component of the spell that is being used to deliver the magical energy from booming blade (thunder) or green flame blade (fire).
"You brandish the weapon used in the spell’s casting and make a melee attack with it against one creature within 5 feet of you. On a hit, the target suffers the weapon attack’s normal effects and then becomes sheathed in booming energy until the start of your next turn."
The target doesn't even need to take any damage from the weapon, they only need to be hit by it in order for the spell to deliver its damage.
As a result, I would rule the weapon damage as just a side effect of the use of the material component and not the result of the spell itself. (The character could always have opted to make a weapon attack using the attack action and done the regular weapon damage on a hit - the only difference in casting the spell is the extra damage due to the spell effect - not the base damage from the weapon itself).
Anyway, that's how I would read it and rule it. The weapon damage is not part of the spell damage. It gets even clearer if shadow blade is being used for the weapon attack. The shadow blade is damage from one spell, the thunder or fire comes from a different spell so maximize used on BB or GFB would not affect damage done by a different spell.
The weapon attack is the material component of the spell. The weapon damage is coincidental and done by the material component of the spell that is being used to deliver the magical energy from booming blade (thunder) or green flame blade (fire).
"You brandish the weapon used in the spell’s casting and make a melee attack with it against one creature within 5 feet of you. On a hit, the target suffers the weapon attack’s normal effects and then becomes sheathed in booming energy until the start of your next turn."
Interesting. Does it change your view that what is quoted isn’t the M component, it’s the spell effect? It’s just that the M component is what is used for the brandishing and attack, but it’s not “coincidental” that it does the damage - if there is no spell effect, there is no weapon attack (or do you play that differently?)
Note: I feel this question gets into stuff like is a Rakshasa immune to the GFB included weapon attack (similar to Dragon Breath, Haste, etc), so there may not be a “correct” answer, I am genuinely curious how others see it.
Chronos
2022-11-10, 04:40 PM
The weapon attack is part of the spell effect, but the weapon damage isn't. If it were, then the damage would be specified in the spell. If you cast Green Flame Blade using a one-handed longsword, then the attack does 1d8+str damage, just like every attack with a longsword always does, with or without magic.
At least, if you're using a physical weapon. If the weapon you're using happens to be a Shadow Blade, then the damage is part of the Shadow Blade spell. On every attack you make with it, you have the option of using the Empowered metamagic.
And if you're using a Shadow Blade to cast Green Flame Blade (we'll just assume that we're using an interpretation that allows this, since interpretations differ), then you can choose to empower the damage from Shadow Blade, or you can choose to empower the damage from Green Flame Blade. Or I think you could empower both (I don't think there's a rule that would prevent it), but that would be two uses of metamagic, and so would require twice as many sorcery points.
Likewise if you use, say, Thunderous Smite and then Green Flame Blade. Though I don't think there's any way to combine Thunderous Smite and Shadow Blade, since both use concentration.
Ooh, here's a possibility: The text for Empower never actually says it needs to be a spell that you cast. So if you have a paladin ally who casts Crusader's Mantle, and you attack, you can empower the damage from the Mantle. And if you're concentrating on Shadow Blade and cast Green Flame Blade, you could spend three points to empower all three spells on one attack.
Thunderous Mojo
2022-11-10, 06:36 PM
Or I think you could empower both (I don't think there's a rule that would prevent it), but that would be two uses of metamagic, and so would require twice as many sorcery points..
PHB pg 102: EMPOWERED SPELL
When you roll damage for a spell, you can spend 1 sorcery point to reroll a number of the damage dice up to your Charisma modifier (minimum of one). You must use the new rolls. You can use Empowered Spell even if you have already used a different Metamagic option during the casting of the spell.
A strict interpretation of the text yields the result that Empower can only be used a single time, and Metamagic can only be used at the time the spell was cast, not afterwards.
PHB pg 101:
You can use only one Metamagic option on a spell when you cast it, unless otherwise noted
The weapon attack is part of the spell effect, but the weapon damage isn't. If it were, then the damage would be specified in the spell.
I’m not sure what you mean by this. The damage is specified in the spell:
“You brandish the weapon used in the spell’s casting and make a melee attack with it against one creature within 5 feet of you. On a hit, the target suffers the weapon attack’s normal effects, and you can cause green fire to leap from the target to a different creature of your choice that you can see within 5 feet of it. The second creature takes fire damage equal to your spellcasting ability modifier.”
And again, if the weapon attack and/or damage aren’t part of the spell effect, then why would they be countered if GFB is Counterspelled?
If they are part of the spell effect, then they are part of the spell’s damage.
Thunderous Mojo
2022-11-10, 11:30 PM
And again, if the weapon attack and/or damage aren’t part of the spell effect, then why would they be countered if GFB is Counterspelled?
If they are part of the spell effect, then they are part of the spell’s damage.
Green Flame Blade uses the Cast a Spell Action. The Cantrip then allows for a special melee attack. Counterspell the cantrip, and there is no attack.
TCE pg 107: On a hit, the target suffers the weapon attack's normal effects, and you can cause green fire to leap from the target to a different creature of your choice that you can see within 5 feet of it.
The weapon attack does not become a melee spell attack.
Green Flame Blade uses the Cast a Spell Action. The Cantrip then allows for a special melee attack. Counterspell the cantrip, and there is no attack.
TCE pg 107: On a hit, the target suffers the weapon attack's normal effects, and you can cause green fire to leap from the target to a different creature of your choice that you can see within 5 feet of it.
The weapon attack does not become a melee spell attack.
I never said it became a melee spell attack: I said the weapon attack is part of, and dependent on, the spell. Hence, it’s part of the spell’s damage.
Were it independent of the spell, such as with the Smite spells, then I can see an argument that’s not part of the spell’s damage.
But it’s clearly not independent of the spell, and very much reliant on it.
Keltest
2022-11-11, 11:16 AM
I never said it became a melee spell attack: I said the weapon attack is part of, and dependent on, the spell. Hence, it’s part of the spell’s damage.
Were it independent of the spell, such as with the Smite spells, then I can see an argument that’s not part of the spell’s damage.
But it’s clearly not independent of the spell, and very much reliant on it.
Its not independent of it, but the damage doesnt come from the spell either, it comes from the weapon attack you make. That you made this attack because its the somatic components for a spell rather than a result of the attack action doesnt matter, its a separate thing even if it is related.
Its not independent of it, but the damage doesnt come from the spell either, it comes from the weapon attack you make. That you made this attack because its the somatic components for a spell rather than a result of the attack action doesnt matter, its a separate thing even if it is related.
No. The weapon attack is not the S component, it’s part of the spell effect.
If:
1) the weapon attack comes from the spell, and
2) the weapon damage comes from the the weapon attack, then
3) the weapon damage comes from the spell
You don’t have the weapon damage without the spell. The weapon damage is 100% dependent on the spell. The weapon damage comes from the spell.
chiefwaha
2022-11-11, 11:42 AM
Ultimately, I believe RAW aren't definitive, but I believe RAI would exclude the weapon damage. As a DM, I would allow it, as I don't believe it leads to anything unbalanced, considering you can reroll all the damage for an 8d6 fireball for 1 sorcery point.
What I believe are relevant RAW:
“Damage Rolls
Each weapon, spell, and harmful monster ability specifies the damage it deals. You roll the damage die or dice, add any modifiers, and apply the damage to your target. Magic weapons, special abilities, and other factors can grant a bonus to damage.
When attacking with a weapon, you add your ability modifier—the same modifier used for the attack roll—to the damage. A spell tells you which dice to roll for damage and whether to add any modifiers.”
GFB specifies the damage it deals. GFB tells you which dice to roll for damage [weapon damage+potential additional fire damage].
If GFB is cast by a level 3 character, where they don’t have a second target, and the attack hits, does GFB not do any damage? Would you say the spell failed?
“Casting a Spell
When a character casts any spell, the same basic rules are followed, regardless of the character’s class or the spell’s effects.
Each spell description in chapter 11 begins with a block of information, including the spell’s name, level, school of magic, casting time, range, components, and duration. The rest of a spell entry describes the spell’s effect.”
“Green Flame Blade
Evocation cantrip
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Self (5-foot radius)
Components: S, M (a melee weapon worth at least 1 sp)
Duration: Instantaneous
You brandish the weapon used in the spell’s casting and make a melee attack with it against one creature within 5 feet of you. On a hit, the target suffers the weapon attack’s normal effects, and you can cause green fire to leap from the target to a different creature of your choice that you can see within 5 feet of it. The second creature takes fire damage equal to your spellcasting ability modifier.”
So the part of GFB that describes making the attack is clearly in “the rest of the spell entry” which “describes the spell’s effects”.
JNAProductions
2022-11-11, 12:10 PM
Like I said, I'd rule differently from what you want. You are free to rule it the way you want-neither ruling will break the game.
May I ask why you're so insistent that your way is the only way?
Chronos
2022-11-11, 04:31 PM
That's exactly why I say that the weapon damage isn't damage from Green Flame Blade, because the spell doesn't tell you what damage it does. The weapon entry does that.
gooch
2022-11-11, 06:26 PM
I’m not sure what you mean by this. The damage is specified in the spell:
“You brandish the weapon used in the spell’s casting and make a melee attack with it against one creature within 5 feet of you. On a hit, the target suffers the weapon attack’s normal effects, and you can cause green fire to leap from the target to a different creature of your choice that you can see within 5 feet of it. The second creature takes fire damage equal to your spellcasting ability modifier.”
And again, if the weapon attack and/or damage aren’t part of the spell effect, then why would they be countered if GFB is Counterspelled?
If they are part of the spell effect, then they are part of the spell’s damage.
Would you rule that you can Metamagic the fall damage if you push someone off a cliff with Telekinesis? Because that's also damage that wouldn't occur if the spell is Counterspelled. I don't see how that's helpful logic for determining a ruling.
I'd also say the weapon damage from GFB should still happen on a Counterspell. Counterspell doesn't stop a spell cast action - otherwise you'd still have your action free to use to just cast the spell again. It only stops the spell's effects from manifesting after the spell cast. Since the weapon damage is mundane and not specified as a spell effect, the creature was still hit with a weapon attack (again, Counterspell does not stop the physical actions of the caster) and still takes the damage.
5eNeedsDarksun
2022-11-11, 06:35 PM
Ultimately, I believe RAW aren't definitive, but I believe RAI would exclude the weapon damage. As a DM, I would allow it, as I don't believe it leads to anything unbalanced, considering you can reroll all the damage for an 8d6 fireball for 1 sorcery point.
I'd pretty much second this. When more than one interpretation is possible I tend to be pragmatic and say 'yes' where possible. Given the fireball example, which is where my sorc used almost every single empower past level 5, it wouldn't feel right to go back to a player with a 'no' here.
Thunderous Mojo
2022-11-11, 07:26 PM
No. The weapon attack is not the S component, it’s part of the spell effect.
If:
1) the weapon attack comes from the spell, and
2) the weapon damage comes from the the weapon attack, then
3) the weapon damage comes from the spell
You don’t have the weapon damage without the spell. The weapon damage is 100% dependent on the spell. The weapon damage comes from the spell.
Under this form of reasoning, a Rakshasa could be ruled to be immune to the damage delivered from the bonus Attack Action from a Haste spell.
One doesn’t “have the damage without the spell”, and since a Rakshasha is immune to spells lower than 6th level, the extra attack granted by Haste would have no effect.
The whataboutism with Fireball, also seems misplaced.
Yes Fireball is a powerful spell. Yet a Fireball does not have the opportunity to double it’s damage on a Critical Hit.
SCAG Cantrips when combined with a Flame Tongue weapon, and or Sneak Attack can produce an impressive amount of damage dice with a critical hit, and re-rolling multiple damage dice from the combo attack can and likely will yield substantial boosts to actual damage.
Rule, however you please, but just because the Fireball spell exists and is good, does not provide sufficient justification for going crazy with the cheese wiz, in my view.
Keltest
2022-11-11, 09:33 PM
Would you rule that you can Metamagic the fall damage if you push someone off a cliff with Telekinesis? Because that's also damage that wouldn't occur if the spell is Counterspelled. I don't see how that's helpful logic for determining a ruling.
I'd also say the weapon damage from GFB should still happen on a Counterspell. Counterspell doesn't stop a spell cast action - otherwise you'd still have your action free to use to just cast the spell again. It only stops the spell's effects from manifesting after the spell cast. Since the weapon damage is mundane and not specified as a spell effect, the creature was still hit with a weapon attack (again, Counterspell does not stop the physical actions of the caster) and still takes the damage.
The easiest way to fluff it is that counterspell has some minor physical backlash that interrupts components and riders on the spell; the attack never gets made because as soon as you start swinging your sword you get the magical equivalent of a distracting slap in the face and the opportunity is lost on the recovery.
Would you rule that you can Metamagic the fall damage if you push someone off a cliff with Telekinesis? Because that's also damage that wouldn't occur if the spell is Counterspelled. I don't see how that's helpful logic for determining a ruling.
The easy answer here is that Telekinesis doesn’t state that damage as part of the spell: falling isn’t, therefore, a damage roll from the spell. My take on that anyway.
I'd also say the weapon damage from GFB should still happen on a Counterspell. Counterspell doesn't stop a spell cast action - otherwise you'd still have your action free to use to just cast the spell again. It only stops the spell's effects from manifesting after the spell cast. Since the weapon damage is mundane and not specified as a spell effect, the creature was still hit with a weapon attack (again, Counterspell does not stop the physical actions of the caster) and still takes the damage.
Except it’s absolutely stated as the spell effect, so I’m not sure where you’re getting that it’s not. RAW the effect doesn’t take place on Counterspell, and the weapon attack very much is part of the spell effect.
However, if you houserule the attack still happening, that may well make not part of the spell.
That's exactly why I say that the weapon damage isn't damage from Green Flame Blade, because the spell doesn't tell you what damage it does. The weapon entry does that.
Except it absolutely does: it tells you it does the attacks normal damage. Does the attack do damage? If yes, then that’s the spell telling you what damage it does.
Like I said, I'd rule differently from what you want. You are free to rule it the way you want-neither ruling will break the game.
May I ask why you're so insistent that your way is the only way?
I’m not. I was wondering what the reasoning was to see other points of view.
Some of the ones mentioned don’t qualify for me as they weren’t correct with RAW.
Under this form of reasoning, a Rakshasa could be ruled to be immune to the damage delivered from the bonus Attack Action from a Haste spell.
That is correct. I believe there are past threads about this.
The whataboutism with Fireball, also seems misplaced.
Yes Fireball is a powerful spell. Yet a Fireball does not have the opportunity to double it’s damage on a Critical Hit.
SCAG Cantrips when combined with a Flame Tongue weapon, and or Sneak Attack can produce an impressive amount of damage dice with a critical hit, and re-rolling multiple damage dice from the combo attack can and likely will yield substantial boosts to actual damage.
Why do critical hits matter? You can only reroll a number of dice up to your Cha Mod. Whether you’re rerolling 4 dice on crap crit roll, or on a crap non-crit roll, it’s the same thing: you’re rerolling 4 dice.
And even if Fireballs could crit, you’d still only be rerolling Cha mod dice.
The fireball (or any AoE) rerolls, however, due much more damage because the rerolls effect more targets.
Thunderous Mojo
2022-11-12, 01:24 AM
Why do critical hits matter? You can only reroll a number of dice up to your Cha Mod. Whether you’re rerolling 4 dice on crap crit roll, or on a crap non-crit roll, it’s the same thing: you’re rerolling 4 dice.
And even if Fireballs could crit, you’d still only be rerolling Cha mod dice.
The fireball (or any AoE) rerolls, however, due much more damage because the rerolls effect more targets.
The argument being proffered was that a melee attack was minor damage, and thus if one could Empower a Fireball, then the impact for Empowering a melee attack is comparatively negligible.
(At least, that was my understanding of the argument).
Yet this may actually not be true. We potentially might have many, many different dice in play for a single attack and the actual delta for re-rolling the dice can be quite large.
Ultimately, I am afraid that I find your argument unconvincing, RSP.
The verbiage of the cantrips in question, strike me as having sufficient distinctions between the direct Cantrip damage, and the melee attack which the text indicates should be handled normally.
Thanks for the topic, and the conversation.
Be Well, Good Luck, and Good Gaming to you all.
Molchmeister
2022-11-12, 03:00 AM
Empowered states:
“When you roll damage for a spell, you can spend 1 sorcery point to reroll a number of the damage dice up to your Charisma modifier (minimum of one). You must use the new rolls.”
However, what is “damage for a spell”?
If I cast GFB at level 5 (1d8 fire), while using a Shadow Blade (2d8 psychic), and have a Cha of 16, is the damage roll of the GFB “spell” 3d8 and you can reroll each die?
Arguments for all being included, as I see it, are:
1) it’s all one damage roll (like for Concentration purposes)
2) if GFB gets Counterspelled, there is no weapon attack, so the weapon attack is, indeed part of the spell, and therefore, part of the spell’s damage
3) certainly not gamebreaking or even optimized (Enpowered on a Fireball hitting 4 targets is much better than using it on GFB.
I see this as more of a 1 SP fee to help a crap damage roll at a time of need.
Thoughts?
PS: other interesting factors that could alter the thinking:
Would the same be true if using say a Flametongue instead of a SB?
Would Smite damage dice be included in the possible rerolls?
"You brandish the weapon used in the spell’s casting and make a melee attack with it against one creature within 5 feet of you. On a hit, the target suffers the weapon attack’s normal effects, and you can cause green fire to leap from the target to a different creature of your choice that you can see within 5 feet of it. The second creature takes fire damage equal to your spellcasting ability modifier." The weapon damage is separated from the spell damage. I would allow you to reroll damage for the shadowblade for an additional SP since they are two different spells.
As far as the PS's not part of the spell.
"You brandish the weapon used in the spell’s casting and make a melee attack with it against one creature within 5 feet of you. On a hit, the target suffers the weapon attack’s normal effects, and you can cause green fire to leap from the target to a different creature of your choice that you can see within 5 feet of it. The second creature takes fire damage equal to your spellcasting ability modifier." The weapon damage is separated from the spell damage. I would allow you to reroll damage for the shadowblade for an additional SP since they are two different spells.
Why is the weapon damage separated in your mind? It’s clearly stated as part of the spell effect. Do you make two separate damage rolls (so two Concentration checks)?
The argument being proffered was that a melee attack was minor damage, and thus if one could Empower a Fireball, then the impact for Empowering a melee attack is comparatively negligible.
(At least, that was my understanding of the argument).
Yet this may actually not be true. We potentially might have many, many different dice in play for a single attack and the actual delta for re-rolling the dice can be quite large.
The argument was not “minor damage”, nor does the amount of dice rolled matter, so long as there are enough to cover the rerolls.
AoEs, like Fireball, have the potential to affect a much greater number of targets than GFB’s first damage roll (1 target).
Whether you roll 10 dice or 5 dice, if your Cha Mod is +5, then you can only reroll 5 dice.
For GFB, those 5 dice rerolled might equal +10 damage to the target.
With the AoE, if those 5 dice increase damage by 10, it’s effectively multiplying the increase in damage by however many targets are hit. So, if 5 targets (assuming no saves for ease of math), you’ve increased the damage output of the AoE by 50.
That’s why using Empowered on GFB doesn’t break anything: the increase to damage output is so much greater when used on AoEs.
Now I think you’re referring to the potential to use Empowered increases with the more dice you roll, which is true, but that doesn’t affect its effectiveness. It’s still 1 SP for Cha mod dice rerolled.
And it’s worth mentioning that a 3rd level Fireball rolls 8 dice. Even using SB, you’d need a crit and be level 11+ to match that roll.
Chronos
2022-11-12, 08:17 AM
Quoth RSP:
The easy answer here is that Telekinesis doesn’t state that damage as part of the spell: falling isn’t, therefore, a damage roll from the spell. My take on that anyway.
So your argument is that if Telekinesis included the (obvious, redundant) line "You might, for instance, use this spell to push a creature off of a cliff, with the normal results", then that would mean that the fall damage was part of the spell?
Except it absolutely does: it tells you it does the attacks normal damage. Does the attack do damage? If yes, then that’s the spell telling you what damage it does.
I just cast a Fireball from a 3rd-level slot. Which of my dice should I reach for? I should reach for eight of my d6s. I know this because Fireball tells me so.
I just cast Green Flame Blade with a fourth-level caster, with only a single enemy nearby. I have a d6, a d8, a d10, and a d12 sitting right in front of me. Which one should I roll?
ETA: Oh, and the balance argument with Fireball isn't really valid. Some metamagics work better with some spells than with others. Empower happens to work well with Fireball. That doesn't mean that it should work that well with everything. I mean, Subtle Spell also doesn't work very well with Green Flame Blade: Does that need to be buffed?
So your argument is that if Telekinesis included the (obvious, redundant) line "You might, for instance, use this spell to push a creature off of a cliff, with the normal results", then that would mean that the fall damage was part of the spell?
I just cast a Fireball from a 3rd-level slot. Which of my dice should I reach for? I should reach for eight of my d6s. I know this because Fireball tells me so.
To start, I’ll restate the relevant RAW:
“Damage Rolls
Each weapon, spell, and harmful monster ability specifies the damage it deals. You roll the damage die or dice, add any modifiers, and apply the damage to your target. Magic weapons, special abilities, and other factors can grant a bonus to damage.
When attacking with a weapon, you add your ability modifier—the same modifier used for the attack roll—to the damage.
A spell tells you which dice to roll for damage and whether to add any modifiers.”
“Empowered Spell. When you roll damage for a spell, you can spend 1 sorcery point to reroll a number of the damage dice up to your Charisma modifier (minimum of one). You must use the new rolls.”
So, does GFB, a spell, specify the damage it deals? Yes. At 5th-10th level, it’s 1d8 fire plus “the weapon attack’s normal effects”.
Telekinesis doesn’t include falling damage in the spell.
I just cast Green Flame Blade with a fourth-level caster, with only a single enemy nearby. I have a d6, a d8, a d10, and a d12 sitting right in front of me. Which one should I roll?
What weapon did you use for the attack. GFB very much states this, and you pretending to not understand what “the weapon attack’s normal effects” means, doesn’t change that the spell clearly includes that as part of its effect.
When you roll damage for GFB, do you roll 1d8 for the fire damage, then force any Concentration checks? Then roll the weapon attack’s normal damage and then force a second Concentration check?
Or do you (as my table has always done) grab a d8 for the fire damage, grab the weapon attack’s normal damage dice, and roll them together, as one damage roll, and then force any Concentration check using the total damage to determine the DC?
ETA: Oh, and the balance argument with Fireball isn't really valid. Some metamagics work better with some spells than with others. Empower happens to work well with Fireball. That doesn't mean that it should work that well with everything. I mean, Subtle Spell also doesn't work very well with Green Flame Blade: Does that need to be buffed?
It’s not a question of buffing Empowered spell. It’s still having the same exact effect form it’s RAW: rerolling Cha + mod damage dice.
Keltest
2022-11-12, 08:45 AM
To start, I’ll restate the relevant RAW:
“Damage Rolls
Each weapon, spell, and harmful monster ability specifies the damage it deals. You roll the damage die or dice, add any modifiers, and apply the damage to your target. Magic weapons, special abilities, and other factors can grant a bonus to damage.
When attacking with a weapon, you add your ability modifier—the same modifier used for the attack roll—to the damage.
A spell tells you which dice to roll for damage and whether to add any modifiers.”
“Empowered Spell. When you roll damage for a spell, you can spend 1 sorcery point to reroll a number of the damage dice up to your Charisma modifier (minimum of one). You must use the new rolls.”
So, does GFB, a spell, specify the damage it deals? Yes. At 5th-10th level, it’s 1d8 fire plus “the weapon attack’s normal effects”.
Telekinesis doesn’t include falling damage in the spell.
What weapon did you use for the attack. GFB very much states this, and you pretending to not understand what “the weapon attack’s normal effects” means, doesn’t change that the spell clearly includes that as part of its effect.
When you roll damage for GFB, do you roll 1d8 for the fire damage, then force any Concentration checks? Then roll the weapon attack’s normal damage and then force a second Concentration check?
Or do you (as my table has always done) grab a d8 for the fire damage, grab the weapon attack’s normal damage dice, and roll them together, as one damage roll, and then force any Concentration check using the total damage to determine the DC?
It’s not a question of buffing Empowered spell. It’s still having the same exact effect form it’s RAW: rerolling Cha + mod damage dice.
If I have to look outside the text of a spell for which dice to roll, then that damage did not come from the spell.
If I have to look outside the text of a spell for which dice to roll, then that damage did not come from the spell.
A houserule, for sure. The RAW tells us, in the previously quoted Damage Rolls section, the spell tells us its damage roll. In this case it’s [weapon attack’s normal effects] + potential fire damage (based on caster’s level).
Does the fact that Cantrips often refer to character levels (hence looking outside the spell for which dice to roll) mean those Cantrips do no damage? Of course not. They assume you understand the leveling system. Just like they assume you understand the rules on weapon attacks.
Does Toll The Dead not do damage because you need to look outside the spell to see which dice to roll?
Chronos
2022-11-13, 08:12 AM
Does Toll The Dead not do damage because you need to look outside the spell to see which dice to roll?
...No, because you don't need to look outside the spell to see which dice to roll.
Let me put it this way: Suppose you're in an unfamiliar place, and you need to use the restroom. You ask the first person you see "Pardon me, where's the restroom?", and they say "I don't know, but that person over there works here; they'd know.". Did that person tell you where the restroom is?
Similarly, if you need to roll a die and don't know which one, and you ask a spell "What die should I use?", and the spell replies "Ask that weapon table over there.", did the spell tell you which die to use?
...No, because you don't need to look outside the spell to see which dice to roll.
Let me put it this way: Suppose you're in an unfamiliar place, and you need to use the restroom. You ask the first person you see "Pardon me, where's the restroom?", and they say "I don't know, but that person over there works here; they'd know.". Did that person tell you where the restroom is?
Similarly, if you need to roll a die and don't know which one, and you ask a spell "What die should I use?", and the spell replies "Ask that weapon table over there.", did the spell tell you which die to use?
You’re artificially creating a difference. “Ask the weapons table” is no different than “Ask the DM if the creature is below HP max.”
You’ve decided “looking outside the spell” to what weapon is used is not part of the spell, yet “looking outside the spell” as to whether a creature is injured or not somehow is found in the spell.
The spell doesn’t tell you if a creature is injured or not. But it does tell you what to do in terms of the damage, just like GFB tells you what to do with the damage.
Edit: and if you really don’t know what damage your weapon does, you can also ask the DM, so the answer to either can be “ask the DM.”
Mastikator
2022-11-13, 11:02 AM
If you could use a shadow blade as a material component for green flame blade then you'd need to empower both. You can empower shadow blade when you cast it, not when you attack with it. If you empowered shadow blade you can then reroll the damage dice when you attack with it.
There's no RAW or even RAI that would ever let you apply a single metamagic on two spells, and seeking spell is the only metamagic that can be used after you cast a spell.
If you could use a shadow blade as a material component for green flame blade then you'd need to empower both. You can empower shadow blade when you cast it, not when you attack with it. If you empowered shadow blade you can then reroll the damage dice when you attack with it.
There's no RAW or even RAI that would ever let you apply a single metamagic on two spells, and seeking spell is the only metamagic that can be used after you cast a spell.
This is wrong. Empower specifically states: “When you roll damage for a spell, you can spend 1 sorcery point to reroll a number of the damage dice up to your Charisma modifier (minimum of one). You must use the new rolls.”
Empower is not used when you cast: it’s used when you roll damage.
As your premise was false, I’m not going to go into the rest at this point.
Keltest
2022-11-13, 12:42 PM
You cant actually empower shadow blade at all. The spell doesnt deal damage, it creates a weapon.
Mastikator
2022-11-13, 01:49 PM
This is wrong. Empower specifically states: “When you roll damage for a spell, you can spend 1 sorcery point to reroll a number of the damage dice up to your Charisma modifier (minimum of one). You must use the new rolls.”
Empower is not used when you cast: it’s used when you roll damage.
As your premise was false, I’m not going to go into the rest at this point.
So if you cast Crown of Stars, no empower.
Then on your next turn cast empowered magic missile, and then use your bonus action to launch a star from the crown of stars spell, you can reroll damage from the crown of stars?
Chronos
2022-11-13, 08:31 PM
Quoth RSP:
You’re artificially creating a difference. “Ask the weapons table” is no different than “Ask the DM if the creature is below HP max.”
No. Toll the Dead deals different damage in different circumstances, but it still tells you what the damage is. The equivalent would be if GFB said "If you used a longsword as the component, roll a d8. If you used a greataxe, roll d12".
Quoth Mastikator:
You can empower shadow blade when you cast it, not when you attack with it.
I think Empower is an exception to the usual metamagic timing rules. Ordinarily you use metamagic when you cast it, but Empower you use when you roll damage. For many spells, that'll be the same time, but not for all.
You cant actually empower shadow blade at all. The spell doesnt deal damage, it creates a weapon.
So a Rakshasa wouldn’t be immune to a SB, as you see it. Likewise, Dragon Breath can’t be Empowered, as the spell only creates the ability to breathe a breath weapon.
It’s a valid viewpoint, but not a unanimous one, based on past threads I’ve seen.
Though this doesn’t change the thread discussion as if a longsword’s damage can be Empowered as part of GFB, so can a SB’s.
No. Toll the Dead deals different damage in different circumstances, but it still tells you what the damage is. The equivalent would be if GFB said "If you used a longsword as the component, roll a d8. If you used a greataxe, roll d12".
It’s the same thing. Toll the Dead tells you what information you need, but requires you to obtain that information outside of what’s listed in the spell. GFB is the same thing: it tells you what what information you need, but you need to obtain that from the weapon used.
Not just for Chronos, but for anyone who thinks the damage from the weapon attack is not GFB damage:
Can you use Seeking Spell Metamagic on GFB?
“Seeking Spell. If you make an attack roll for a spell and miss, you can spend 2 sorcerer points to reroll the d20, and you must use the new roll.”
You’re making the attack roll for the spell, right? I don’t see a reason why not.
If the weapon attack roll is part of the spell, why wouldn’t the damage roll of that attack be part of the spell?
Keltest
2022-11-14, 07:51 AM
So a Rakshasa wouldn’t be immune to a SB, as you see it. Likewise, Dragon Breath can’t be Empowered, as the spell only creates the ability to breathe a breath weapon.
It’s a valid viewpoint, but not a unanimous one, based on past threads I’ve seen.
Though this doesn’t change the thread discussion as if a longsword’s damage can be Empowered as part of GFB, so can a SB’s.
Sure. If a Rakshasa is standing on a platform above a cliff and I disintegrate the platform, the fall damage is not part of the spell even though it came about as a result of the casting.
Which is a good precedent for why you also cant empower the weapon attack for GFB. That damage comes from the attack, which is separate from the spell even though one is directly causing the other.
Sure. If a Rakshasa is standing on a platform above a cliff and I disintegrate the platform, the fall damage is not part of the spell even though it came about as a result of the casting.
Which is a good precedent for why you also cant empower the weapon attack for GFB. That damage comes from the attack, which is separate from the spell even though one is directly causing the other.
The damage from Inflict Wounds comes from an attack as well. If your stance is attacks are separate from spells, are only Save spells able to be Empowered (in your view, which I maintain is not RAW).
Also disintegrating a platform on which a Rakshasa is standing is not a necessary part of the Disintegrate spell, nor is it even mentioned in the spell effect, so I’m not sure why you think that should be precedence for anything, but again, I disagree with your views here being RAW.
Keltest
2022-11-14, 08:04 AM
The damage from Inflict Wounds comes from an attack as well. If your stance is attacks are separate from spells, are only Save spells able to be Empowered (in your view, which I maintain is not RAW).
Also disintegrating a platform on which a Rakshasa is standing is not a necessary part of the Disintegrate spell, nor is it even mentioned in the spell effect, so I’m not sure why you think that should be precedence for anything, but again, I disagree with your views here being RAW.
The damage from inflict wounds comes from the spell. Weapon attacks are separate from spell attacks. Thats why they say "make a spell attack" or "make a weapon attack" instead of just "make an attack"
As for disintegrate,
This spell automatically disintegrates a Large or smaller nonmagical object or a Creation of magical force. If the target is a Huge or larger object or Creation of force, this spell disintegrates a 10-foot-cube portion of it. A magic item is unaffected by this spell.
So yes, you can target the platform under it just fine, and even cause it damage by dropping it in that manner, RAW.
Keravath
2022-11-14, 08:37 AM
What I believe are relevant RAW:
“Damage Rolls
Each weapon, spell, and harmful monster ability specifies the damage it deals. You roll the damage die or dice, add any modifiers, and apply the damage to your target. Magic weapons, special abilities, and other factors can grant a bonus to damage.
When attacking with a weapon, you add your ability modifier—the same modifier used for the attack roll—to the damage. A spell tells you which dice to roll for damage and whether to add any modifiers.”
GFB specifies the damage it deals. GFB tells you which dice to roll for damage [weapon damage+potential additional fire damage].
If GFB is cast by a level 3 character, where they don’t have a second target, and the attack hits, does GFB not do any damage? Would you say the spell failed?
“Casting a Spell
When a character casts any spell, the same basic rules are followed, regardless of the character’s class or the spell’s effects.
Each spell description in chapter 11 begins with a block of information, including the spell’s name, level, school of magic, casting time, range, components, and duration. The rest of a spell entry describes the spell’s effect.”
“Green Flame Blade
Evocation cantrip
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Self (5-foot radius)
Components: S, M (a melee weapon worth at least 1 sp)
Duration: Instantaneous
You brandish the weapon used in the spell’s casting and make a melee attack with it against one creature within 5 feet of you. On a hit, the target suffers the weapon attack’s normal effects, and you can cause green fire to leap from the target to a different creature of your choice that you can see within 5 feet of it. The second creature takes fire damage equal to your spellcasting ability modifier.”
So the part of GFB that describes making the attack is clearly in “the rest of the spell entry” which “describes the spell’s effects”.
Interesting :) ... you realize that if I bold different parts of the rules you quoted I get a different answer?
"Each weapon, spell, and harmful monster ability specifies the damage it deals"
"On a hit, the target suffers the weapon attack’s normal effects"
The spell specifically refers to the weapon attack damage which is cited in the first sentence quoted. The spell text can be interpreted as saying that the weapon does its normal damage AS weapon damage. It isn't "spell" damage just because the damage is a side effect of the spell especially when the spell itself calls it out as weapon damage and not spell damage. In this case, I would interpret the weapon damage to be separate from spell damage (the fire or thunder damage from GFB or BB).
Compare this to shillelagh which changes the weapon's nature making it magical and doing d8 damage. When you hit something with that shillelagh is it weapon damage or spell damage? Personally, I would rule that it was weapon damage even though the weapon is described in the spell and it would not have the modified properties without the spell.
Interesting :) ... you realize that if I bold different parts of the rules you quoted I get a different answer?
"Each weapon, spell, and harmful monster ability specifies the damage it deals"
"On a hit, the target suffers the weapon attack’s normal effects"
The spell specifically refers to the weapon attack damage which is cited in the first sentence quoted. The spell text can be interpreted as saying that the weapon does its normal damage AS weapon damage. It isn't "spell" damage just because the damage is a side effect of the spell especially when the spell itself calls it out as weapon damage and not spell damage. In this case, I would interpret the weapon damage to be separate from spell damage (the fire or thunder damage from GFB or BB).
Compare this to shillelagh which changes the weapon's nature making it magical and doing d8 damage. When you hit something with that shillelagh is it weapon damage or spell damage? Personally, I would rule that it was weapon damage even though the weapon is described in the spell and it would not have the modified properties without the spell.
Where are you seeing “weapon damage” and “roll damage for a spell” as mutually exclusive? Is this something you e just decided is a fact without any sort of basis in the RAW?
Roll damage for a spell is not in anyway a game term: it’s just it’s common English meaning. “Weapon damage” isn’t a game term either, so far as I can tell, but also just common English.
So what makes you believe those are mutually exclusive? The spell effect flat out includes a weapon attack, and that attack’s normal effects, why wouldn’t that then be part of the spell?
Is it solely because you‘ve decided to houserule “weapon damage cannot be spell damage”?
What are you defining “spell damage” as, if not damage stated in the spell effects”.
Keltest
2022-11-14, 09:20 AM
Where are you seeing “weapon damage” and “roll damage for a spell” as mutually exclusive? Is this something you e just decided is a fact without any sort of basis in the RAW?
Roll damage for a spell is not in anyway a game term: it’s just it’s common English meaning. “Weapon damage” isn’t a game term either, so far as I can tell, but also just common English.
So what makes you believe those are mutually exclusive? The spell effect flat out includes a weapon attack, and that attack’s normal effects, why wouldn’t that then be part of the spell?
Is it solely because you‘ve decided to houserule “weapon damage cannot be spell damage”?
What are you defining “spell damage” as, if not damage stated in the spell effects”.
Fun fact, the weapon's damage is not stated in the spell effects. Its stated in the weapon table. You've made our point for us.
Keravath
2022-11-14, 09:45 AM
Where are you seeing “weapon damage” and “roll damage for a spell” as mutually exclusive? Is this something you e just decided is a fact without any sort of basis in the RAW?
Roll damage for a spell is not in anyway a game term: it’s just it’s common English meaning. “Weapon damage” isn’t a game term either, so far as I can tell, but also just common English.
So what makes you believe those are mutually exclusive? The spell effect flat out includes a weapon attack, and that attack’s normal effects, why wouldn’t that then be part of the spell?
Is it solely because you‘ve decided to houserule “weapon damage cannot be spell damage”?
What are you defining “spell damage” as, if not damage stated in the spell effects”.
Wow, quite confrontational.
My opinion is that "RAW" in this case could support both points of view depending on what a DM wants to rule. The booming blade spell says which I quoted above and which you chose to ignore.
"On a hit, the target suffers the weapon attack’s normal effects."
The spell enabled the weapon attack as part of the spell but in my opinion it isn't spell damage BECAUSE the spell states it is a normal weapon attack. (Note also that the spell does NOT specify the damage as noted above - the damage is the result of the supplemental weapon attack).
How do you run Haste? Haste gives an extra attack action which allows another attack with a weapon AS PART OF THE SPELL which seems to be your fundamental reasoning here. Can a sorcerer use empower on the weapon attack provided by Haste? Using your logic the answer is yes since the attack is a part of the spell effect making it spell damage. I'd rule otherwise. The weapon attack provided by booming blade or haste is a WEAPON attack and so can't be empowered.
However, you rule how you wish, it is your game. My version is consistent with RAW since there is nothing that says that weapon attacks that are enabled as a part of a spell are considered "spell" damage that could be empowered especially when the spell says something like the "weapon attack's normal effects" which could be interpreted to mean a normal weapon attack.
... but you do you.
Wow, quite confrontational.
Nothing meant to be confrontation: just asking questions (unless you see someone asking questions of you as confrontational, I guess).
My opinion is that "RAW" in this case could support both points of view depending on what a DM wants to rule. The booming blade spell says which I quoted above and which you chose to ignore.
"On a hit, the target suffers the weapon attack’s normal effects."
And that attack is granted through casting the spell, and the Cast a Spell Action. It is wholly dependent on the spell effect. That effect clearly tells you what occurs, as you’ve pointed out.
How do you run Haste? Haste gives an extra attack action which allows another attack with a weapon AS PART OF THE SPELL which seems to be your fundamental reasoning here. Can a sorcerer use empower on the weapon attack provided by Haste? Using your logic the answer is yes since the attack is a part of the spell effect making it spell damage. I'd rule otherwise. The weapon attack provided by booming blade or haste is a WEAPON attack and so can't be empowered.
Personally, I have no issue with a Player using Empowered on a Haste granted Attack Action, but that’s more because it’s a rather suboptimal, though fun, way to use Empowered. (If the Player decides their game play is better using a limited resource on a single damage roll, that is regularly used in more effective ways, it’s not breaking anything to while adding to their fun).
However, there is no dependent relationship with the granted Action needing to be an Attack, nor of Haste requiring said attack for the spell to work as written.
In other words, you can cast Haste, and have it work without issues, while never using the Attack Action for the extra Action granted by the spell.
The same can’t be said of GFB and its attack. You can’t say “eh, we don’t need to do the attack” and have the spell work. Similar to Inflict Wounds: the attack is necessary to have any resolution on the spell. The spell cannot exist without the attack, and the attack is wholly reliant on the spell effect.
And the spell states what that damage is. Hence, it’s encapsulated by “roll damage for a spell”: you’re literally rolling damage dice as part of a spell effect.
This is why I mentioned Seeking Spell Metamagic, which states it’s usable when “you make an attack roll for a spell and miss”. It doesn’t specify “spell attack roll” or otherwise exclude weapon attacks. So I would say Seeking Spell Metamagic can be used on GFB’s weapon attack (if that roll missss).
The language is even similar:
“you [make an attack roll] for a spell”
“you [roll damage] for a spell”
Fun fact, the weapon's damage is not stated in the spell effects. Its stated in the weapon table. You've made our point for us.
And yet the spell does indeed state the damage it does, otherwise we’d all be clueless as to what damage it does.
But again, can know how much damage Toll the Dead does just by looking at the spell effect? Or do we need to check the current health and max health of the target to find out? So does that mean the damage from Toll the Dead isn’t spell damage?
JNAProductions
2022-11-14, 02:40 PM
{Scrubbed}
greenstone
2022-11-14, 05:08 PM
I’m not sure what you mean by this. The damage is specified in the spell:
“You brandish the weapon used in the spell’s casting and make a melee attack with it against one creature within 5 feet of you. On a hit, the target suffers the weapon attack’s normal effects, and you can cause green fire to leap from the target to a different creature of your choice that you can see within 5 feet of it. The second creature takes fire damage equal to your spellcasting ability modifier.”
And again, if the weapon attack and/or damage aren’t part of the spell effect, then why would they be countered if GFB is Counterspelled?
If they are part of the spell effect, then they are part of the spell’s damage.
If you attack a rakshasa with greenflame blade, how much damage does it take? The weapon damage or none?
Using the reading above, the rakshasa takes no damage. I imagine some players would object to this. If I stab it with my sword, it takes damage. If I stab it with the same sword, but using greenflame blade, it takes no damage? Why not? It's the same sword.
My ruling would be that the weapon damage and the spell damage are from diferent souces. The rakshasa would take the weapon damage. Additionally, if greenflame blade is counterspelled the weapon attack still takes place, just without the accompanying magic.
Though, I'd be fine playing at a table rulling the other way around. As long as there is some sort of consistency.
As an aside, I wish the authors of the game had thought about all of these sorts of issues before including the weapon attack cantrips. :smallmad:
If you attack a rakshasa with greenflame blade, how much damage does it take? The weapon damage or none?
Using the reading above, the rakshasa takes no damage. I imagine some players would object to this. If I stab it with my sword, it takes damage. If I stab it with the same sword, but using greenflame blade, it takes no damage? Why not? It's the same sword.
Eh, there’s plenty of that in the ruleset as is. With Quicken, a character can not only get 2 castings of GFB in a turn, but get 2 attacks in as well.
That same Player in your example might ask, “if I can make two attacks, while casting two spells, why can’t I make 2 attacks while not casting two spells?
The answer is (as I see it) “because the attacks were part of the Magic from the spells.” Once you separate that idea, then yeah, why can’t they make two attacks there, sans spells?
My ruling would be that the weapon damage and the spell damage are from diferent souces. The rakshasa would take the weapon damage. Additionally, if greenflame blade is counterspelled the weapon attack still takes place, just without the accompanying magic.
Though, I'd be fine playing at a table rulling the other way around. As long as there is some sort of consistency.
As an aside, I wish the authors of the game had thought about all of these sorts of issues before including the weapon attack cantrips. :smallmad:
100% agree on consistency in ruling, and on the devs having a better grasp of, and explaination of, how they think this stuff would work.
Having a creature that “can’t be affected by spells” 6th level or lower, is rather broad, as plenty of online debate has noted.
GFB and BB are both interesting in how they work. I get wanting the weapon attack to be separate from the spell, but a) that’s not how it’s written, and b) changing it creates as much of a problem as it tries to fix.
As a Player, I wouldn’t want to waste a Counterspell that doesn’t even prevent the attack that comes with the spell. (I understand people play Counterspell in different ways too; and plenty probably know what spell is being cast before choosing.)
But as you said, consistency is the most important. Personally, for DMs that want to separate the weapon attack, I would just make GFB and BB Bonus Action spells like the Smite spells that then use a follow on Attack Action to get the effect, completely separating the weapon attack and spell effect.
Note this obviously then uses the character’s BA, but at least it follows established rules.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.