Theorycraft: Tricking out Scorching Ray - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Yunru Dec 17, 2014 17:49:43	For this exercise we'll be ignoring effects that don't directly apply to Scorching Ray. Other than that, what ways are there of pimping the rays? I'll start with the ones I've found: ● Fire Dragon Sorcerer 6 can add +Cha mod to damage. ● Evocation Wizard 10 can add +Int mod to damage. ● Evocation Wizard 14 can maximize damage when cast as a 5th level or lower. ● Quickened metamagic allows casting as a bonus action. ● Empowered metamagic allows rerolling of damage dice. ● Fiend Warlock makes it count as a Warlock spell. ○ Thus Rod of the Pact Keeper. ● Likewise, Wand of the War Mage. ● Hex adds 1d6 to damage. ● Advantage doing its thing. ● War Caster lets you cast it as an OA. ● Crossbow Expert lets you cast it in melee without penalty. ● Spell Sniper lets you ignore all but full cover. ● Wild Sorcerer's Spell Bombardment adds damage. ● [insert feat name] allows you to ignore fire resistance.
#2 mellored Dec 17, 2014 18:18:15	Advantage. war caster, as an OA. spell sniper.
#3 Stormborn20 Dec 17, 2014 19:23:28	Hex
#4 mellored Dec 17, 2014 19:32:38	i don't see how quicken is really adding anything. it's not like it helps you cast it faster. maybe you could use your action to get advantage, but i don't know how. but action surge does.
#5 mellored Dec 17, 2014 19:31:48	wild sorcerer spell bombardment, and crossbow expertise to cast in melee. though those are less helpfull.
#6 Stormborn20 Dec 17, 2014 19:57:45	mellored wrote:
#7 Ashrym Dec 17, 2014 20:51:44	I would rule against rod of the pact keeper and empowered evocation at the same time because empowered evocation only applies to wizard spells. I would allow empowered evocation from a standard spell slot if prepped from the wizard class plus elemental affinity since that isn't class specific. Using a known spell or a warlock spell slot disqualifies it as a non-wizard spell.
#8 dragonfather Dec 18, 2014 0:10:24	Sorcerer 6, Evocation Wizard 14. 20 cha, 20 int (only possible in point buy with a tome for a +2) Magic initiate feat for hex Wand of war mage +3 Assuming you can twin scorching ray if you only target one dude: Hex the BBEG, then use a level 5 spell slot and twin scorching ray onto him. Maximize the spell. You end up with 3d6 +10 maxed per ray, with 12 rays. 28 per ray (22 fire, 6 necrotic) times 12 rays is 336 damage, assuming all rays hit. Any crits result in 18 extra damage each. Maximum theoretical with all crits (perhaps by being helpless) is 336 + 18*12 = 552. If you have someone who can wish a hallow effect into existence to create vulnerability and strip resistances you could theoretically one shot everything but the tarrasque (which just reflects the rays)
#9 Yunru Dec 18, 2014 3:35:56	Nonsense, just go 8/12 instead, that way you get all the ABIs. I mean, maxed damage is nice so I'd consider it, but as you said: need more ABI.
#10 dragonfather Dec 18, 2014 8:29:48	Without the maximize, your damage shoots way down. With 18 cha instead of 20, you lose 12 damage.
#11 Elfcrusher Dec 18, 2014 9:28:11	What can you do with a maximum character level of 10? Or maybe the interesting exercise is: for level 1-20 how can you optimize at every level?
#12 Yunru Dec 18, 2014 9:41:53	For a Maximum level of 10? Warlock 4/Sorcerer 6. 2 short rest 2nd level spell slots to cast it with, it can benefit from Rod of the Pact Keeper and of course it has +Cha. That and you can Darkness + Devil's Sight to get advantage on all the rolls.
(Reply to #8) Ashrym	dragonfather wrote:
#14 Elfcrusher Dec 18, 2014 10:27:41	Oh I see, I didn't realize the Evocation bonus doesn't kick in until 10th. So minimum 16 to get the bonus to both. Still, awfully fun once you get there. An Evoker/Draconic Sorcerer with 20 Cha and 20 Int and Twinned Spell? With a 5th level slot that's 12 rays each doing 2d6 + 10, correct? Even with average damage that's around 320 damage at level 16. Then with the last 4 levels into Warlock you can get an awesome familiar and another 2 slots per short rest. Combined with Wizard's recovery that's 9 spell levels worth of casting every short rest. If you want Elemental Adept and 2 20's you'd have to go variant Human, since you only get 4 Ability Increases. EDIT: Oops, just saw Ashrym's reply. I'm only a little disappointed.
(Reply to #12) Coredump00	Yunru wrote:
#16 mellored Dec 18, 2014 11:51:06	Coredump00 wrote:
#17 Elfcrusher Dec 18, 2014 12:08:40	mellored wrote:
#18 mellored Dec 18, 2014 12:16:15	Elfcrusher wrote:
(Reply to #14) Ashrym	Elfcrusher wrote:
#20 1eejit Dec 18, 2014 23:51:07	Nice whiteroom, but if you rely to heavily on scorching ray you'll likely end up having most DMs throw a selection of the many fire resist/immune enemies at you :-)
#21 Yunru Dec 19, 2014 1:07:25	If that happens then leave the table, your DM's a dick.
#22 1eejit Dec 19, 2014 1:30:09	Sure, the DM is a dick if he doesn't like a min-maxer novaing every opponent...
(Reply to #20) Ashrym	1eejit wrote:
(Reply to #22) Yunru	1eejit wrote:
#25 1eejit Dec 19, 2014 2:17:00	Or how about the DM should provide a challenge, even to a specialised min maxer?
#26 Yunru Dec 19, 2014 2:26:07	Challenge =/= "Imma make you at best half as useful! Yay!" If a player is min/maxing obviously he likes to kill dtuff easy. Thus killing stuff shouldn't be the challenge to the min/maxer. Instead do your job as a DM better and make encounters more than just "kill them all". Unless of course the entire party wants to have just "kill them all". In which case if they're min/maxing they're not looking for a challenge. Which all boils down to my previous point: If your DM is throwing Fire resistant/immune monsters at you because you chose to specialize, you're DM is a dick and you're better of leaving.
(Reply to #26) EzechielDantan	Yunru wrote:
#28 Yunru Dec 19, 2014 3:28:27	For my table? We've had tonnes of fun? Why? Because "kill all the things" isn't the goal of encounters. Sure it can be a large part but we actually focus on the other two pillars as well. And again, someone specialising in Scorching Ray is no different than a Fighter specialising in a Crossbow. Would you penalise a Fighter so?
#29 1eejit Dec 19, 2014 3:27:45	Well you have to focus on the other two pillars entirely if every combat ends in a single round nova...
#30 Yunru Dec 19, 2014 3:31:29	Well now you're just spewing hyperbole. I challenge you to find one published encounter where an appropriately leveled specialist can Nova every enemy first round.
(Reply to #21) eleran	Yunru wrote:
#32 mellored Dec 19, 2014 5:28:54	IMO: If players are dominating, a DM should add more or bigger monsters, rather then specificly screw over a patciualr build. Running into a 6 mummies instead of 5, is alot easier then running into fire immune mummies.
(Reply to #31) Yunru	eleran wrote:
(Reply to #32) 1eejit	mellored wrote:
#35 Elfcrusher Dec 19, 2014 9:33:36	If the DM is doing it for personal reasons (e.g. "I hate this guy...") then, yeah, he's being a dick. But there are different types of games, and if there's one minmaxer at a table of people who have non-optimized characters for story reasons, then I don't think telling somebody "Sorry, my interpretation prevents that combination" isn't being a dick, it's adjudication for the good of the table. Just last night a player showed up at our AL table with a Wild Sorcerer. I said, "Really? You don't want a Dragon Sorc?" She said, "Nope, I really love wild magic," and smiled happily.
#36 mellored Dec 19, 2014 10:07:57	1eejit wrote:
#37 Baphogoat Dec 19, 2014 10:52:52	The DM is (probably) only being a dick if you see the fire resistant monsters ALL the time. But for one or a few encounters when it makes sense, seems like maybe he is challenging the party to find another solution.
(Reply to #8) Yunru	Ashrym wrote:
#39 EzechielDantan Dec 21, 2014 5:59:39	Yunru wrote:
#40 Yunru Dec 21, 2014 6:44:50	No, it's not a matter of interpretation. There is a list, specifically called "Wizard Spells". Anything under that heading is therefore a Wizard Spell or it wouldn't be there. It's not "Wizard Spells When Taken By A Wizard", it's "Wizard Spells". There is no ambiguity.
#41 raleel Dec 21, 2014 7:21:56	IME, it doesn't make sense to counter the players directly by making stuff appear that directly counters their powerful ability. You just take it into account, put something in that is the bait for that thing, let the player feel like a million bucks, then out everything else for the rest of the group. If the player is maximizing that hard, he likes to win. Let him win, but make the victories not really the whole battle. Yes, you just took down a dragon, but there are 30 gnolls that are the real threat here. Speaking from personal experience and learning this the hard way, works like a champ.
(Reply to #40) EzechielDantan	Yunru wrote:
#43 Yunru Dec 21, 2014 7:45:03	There's a name for believing some labeled "X" is not in fact "X". It's called being wrong. The list defines them as what they are. To say a spell on the Sorcerer Spells list isn't a Sorcerer spell because it's cast by a Wizard is nonsense. It. Is. Defined. As such. Unless something else contradicts it, it will always be defined as such. Long story short: your interpretation is unsupported and nonsensical. Harsh but true.
(Reply to #43) EzechielDantan	Yunru wrote:
#45 Yunru Dec 21, 2014 8:11:11	No. A spell that is on both the Cleric and Wizard list is both a Cleric and a Wizard spell. Thus the Wizard could cast it using his knowledge of magic, or a cleric using prayers to his god OR a Wizard/Cleric could cast it using one way augmented with the other. Or to make it more relevent: Scorching Ray is both a Wizard Spell and a Sorcerer Spell. Thus a Wizard/Sorcerer could cast it using his inate talent as a Sorcerer augemented by his knowledge of the spell as a Wizard. Also: your argument is irrelevent. Whether a spell is Divine or Magical depends on how it's cast, not the spell itself. A Cleric/Wizard spell is still a Cleric/Wizard even if it was cast by a [insert third spell source class]. If anything the stubbornness is on your end. Especially considering your stance is supported by nothing tangible and mine is supported by an entire section of the PHB.
#46 mellored Dec 21, 2014 8:44:59	If you prepaired it as your wizard spell, it's a wizard spell, and cast with Int. Likewise if you know it by being a sorcerer, it's a sorcerer spell, and cast with Cha. Slots don't matter and lists don't matter. each class is treated seperatly when it comes to what spells they have.
#47 Yunru Dec 21, 2014 9:03:14	And can you quote your sources? Each class is treated seperatedly when it comes to preparing and known spells. True. A spell prepared the Wizard way uses Int, a Sorcerer Cha. True. Either of those affects whether a spell is a X Spell or not? False. Hell, the fact you could choose to prepare it as class X or class Y is only possible because it is both a class X spell AND a class Y spell. Or are you saying the generic "It's prepared as a wizard therefore it is a wizard spell" overrides "It's specifically defined as a Class X, Y and Z spell"? I'd also like to point out that what class you are only effects whether you have access to a spell, not what sort of spell it is.
(Reply to #47) Ashrym	Yunru wrote:
#49 Yunru Dec 21, 2014 11:52:00	That sentence is in no way exclusive, nor does it prohibit spells being associated with multiple classes. Not only that, but it only refers to what spellcasting stat to use. Good try but next.
#50 Ganymede425 Dec 21, 2014 12:02:09	Help me out here. Why does it matter what class list the spell is on?
#51 Jay_Ibero_911 Dec 21, 2014 12:04:35	mellored wrote:
#52 mellored Dec 21, 2014 13:37:40	"One of" is exclusive.
#53 Yunru Dec 21, 2014 13:46:25	Yes, except the quote given is wrong, it doesn't actually end there, instead going on to say that the association is with relation to the spellcaster stat.
(Reply to #41) Frozeman	raleel wrote:
(Reply to #50) Ashrym	Ganymede425 wrote:
(Reply to #53) Ashrym	Yunru wrote:
#57 Yunru Dec 21, 2014 14:45:52	Nope. Each spell you know and prepare is associated with one o f your classes, and you use the spellcasting ability o f that class when you cast the spell. Similarly, a spellcasting focus, such as a holy symbol, can be used only for the spells from the class associated with that focus.
(Reply to #55) Ganymede425	Ashrym wrote:
(Reply to #57) Ashrym	Yunru wrote:
(Reply to #58) Ashrym	Ganymede425 wrote:
#61 mellored Dec 22, 2014 5:10:26	Yunru wrote:
#62 Yunru Dec 22, 2014 16:06:09	@_FoxyBoxes_ "What defines a spell as being, say, a Wizard spell? Is it its presence on the 'Wizard Spells' list?" @mikemearls Yes.
#63 mellored Dec 23, 2014 6:30:01	Yunru wrote:
#64 Yunru Dec 23, 2014 7:05:27	Eh, you can still only cast with one foci right? Right?
#65 mellored Dec 23, 2014 7:10:23	Yunru wrote:
#66 Yunru Jan 06, 2015 16:48:35	This just in: @_FoxyBoxes_ "if a spell is on more than one list, does it count for both (e.g. Scorching Ray Wiz/Sorc)?" @mikemearls That's correct.
#67 Stormborn20 Jan 06, 2015 18:04:52	Yunru wrote:
#68 Coredump00 Jan 06, 2015 23:16:59	Asking a rules question without being clear of the intended use of the ruling, leads to unclear results. asking Mearls leads to fairly useless rules answers. We all agree that the spell is both a Wiz and Sorc spell... the question is if a single casting can count as both at the same time. Try this one: A lvl 6 wizard casts Witch Bolt while holding a Rod of the Pact Keeper, would he get the bonus just because Witchbolt is on the wizard and warlock lists?
#69 Ashrym Jan 07, 2015 0:10:05	You determine what spells you know and prepare from each class individually, each spell is associated with one of your classes, you use the ability modifier for the one class with which the spell is associated when you cast the spell, and a spell casting focus can be used only for the spells from the class associated with that focus. PHB pg 164 It still seems very clear that when you cast the spell it is associated with the one class from which it is known or prepared and treated accordingly.
#70 Yunru Jan 07, 2015 0:19:37	Except it's not. No where there does it suggest that's how you determine whether a spell is an X Spell. Both times, however, the lead developer for rulings has tweeted to support the theory of "If it's under the list as an X Spell, then it's an X Spell. If it's also listed as a Y Spell then it's also a Y Spell." . The only thing the quoted passage tells us is that you have to apply one ability mod, based on which class spell(/cantrip) known slot you used. Nowhere does it suggest otherwise.
(Reply to #68) Yunru	Coredump00 wrote:
(Reply to #70) Ashrym	Yunru wrote:
#73 Yunru Jan 07, 2015 1:07:51	Here's three Wizard spells: Scorching Ray Fireball Shield Agreed? That's three Wizard spells. Two of them are also Sorcerer spells. Your example defines nothing. Also, good job at "convieniently" missing the other reason I wouldn't (couldn't actually) tweet it: the character limit.
(Reply to #71) Coredump00	Yunru wrote:
(Reply to #74) Yunru	Coredump00 wrote:
#76 7he_professor Jan 07, 2015 7:21:00	The fact that some disagree proves that there are those that will not allow/use one of the options presented (warranted or not). Can you please move on from this one rules issue, and present more options for tricking out Scorching Ray? Perhaps consider using two sets of possibilities: 1 if you agree with the ruling, 1 if you don't. It's really not that big of a deal...
#77 ORC_Animus Jan 07, 2015 8:27:15	I’ve removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting/personal attacks are violations of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code of Conduct here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively. If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
(Reply to #74) Yunru	Coredump00 wrote:
(Reply to #78) Coredump00	Yunru wrote:
#80 Yunru Jan 07, 2015 9:05:27	If you're Warlock 1 as well, yes. If it didn't have that restriction, yes. The fact that it has the restriction even reinforces my case. If it didn't need the restriction, why have it?
#81 Coredump00 Jan 07, 2015 10:57:47	Likely because only a Warlock would benefit from it. Just like a Pearl of Power can only be attuned by a spellcaster. Only a spell caster would beneft from it. The Rod would also cause rule issues by giving a non-warlock a warlock spell slot....
#82 Yunru Jan 13, 2015 11:57:32	@_FoxyBoxes_ "Rod only effects Warlock spells. Empowered Evoc. only effects Wizard Spells. If it's on both lists does it get both +s?" Yes.
#83 Coredump00 Jan 13, 2015 12:13:41	Looking at some of his other rulings, I am not overly surprised... but still somewhat surprised. Good to have an answer.
(Reply to #76) Yunru	7he_professor wrote:
#85 Stormborn20 Jan 13, 2015 13:51:26	Yunru wrote:
(Reply to #85) Coredump00	Stormborn20 wrote:
#87 Huntsman57 Jan 13, 2015 16:10:20	Is there someplace where all these post rule book dev calls are compiled? I'm not entirely certain where you guys get this info.
#88 Coredump00 Jan 13, 2015 16:45:17	http://www.sageadvice.eu/ https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/with_replies
(Reply to #88) Huntsman57	Coredump00 wrote:
#90 Ashrym Jan 13, 2015 21:19:18	Coredump00 wrote:
#91 Yunru Jan 14, 2015 2:21:20	Personally I blame the character limit.
(Reply to #90) Coredump00	Ashrym wrote:
(Reply to #92) EzechielDantan	Coredump00 wrote:
#94 Yunru Jan 14, 2015 9:25:52	So now we have confirmation... both ways.
#95 Coredump00 Jan 14, 2015 10:33:20	Not really. The issue was if both benefits could be used simultaneously..... that was pretty clearly answered after a chain of tweets clarifying the question..
(Reply to #93) Coredump00	EzechielDantan wrote:
#97 Stormborn20 Jan 15, 2015 18:31:34	I think I get it now. If you multiclass Wizard(evocation)/Warlock(fiend) and learn scorching ray "as a warlock spell" -- by which I mean when you gain a warlock level and have it count against your known spells rather than being written into your spellbook and prepared -- then you may still choose to cast scorching ray as either a wizard spell or a warlock spell. If you cast it as a wizard spell, you would use Int as your spellcasting ability and apply may apply empowered evocation. If you cast it as a warlock spell, you would use Cha as your spellcasting ability and would not apply empowered evocation. You know what, I really kind of like this interpretation.

Post/Author/DateTime

Post

Yunru

Dec 17, 2014 17:49:43

For this exercise we'll be ignoring effects that don't directly apply to Scorching Ray. Other than that, what ways are there of pimping the rays?

I'll start with the ones I've found:

● Fire Dragon Sorcerer 6 can add +Cha mod to damage.

● Evocation Wizard 10 can add +Int mod to damage.

● Evocation Wizard 14 can maximize damage when cast as a 5th level or lower.

● Quickened metamagic allows casting as a bonus action.

● Empowered metamagic allows rerolling of damage dice.

● Fiend Warlock makes it count as a Warlock spell.

○ Thus Rod of the Pact Keeper.

● Likewise, Wand of the War Mage.

● Hex adds 1d6 to damage.

● Advantage doing its thing.

● War Caster lets you cast it as an OA.

● Crossbow Expert lets you cast it in melee without penalty.

● Spell Sniper lets you ignore all but full cover.

● Wild Sorcerer's Spell Bombardment adds damage.

● [insert feat name] allows you to ignore fire resistance.

mellored

Dec 17, 2014 18:18:15

Advantage.
war caster, as an OA.
spell sniper.

Stormborn20

Dec 17, 2014 19:23:28

Hex

mellored

Dec 17, 2014 19:32:38

i don't see how quicken is really adding anything. it's not like it helps you cast it faster. maybe you could use your action to get advantage, but i don't know how.

but action surge does.

mellored

Dec 17, 2014 19:31:48

wild sorcerer spell bombardment, and crossbow expertise to cast in melee. though those are less helpfull.

Stormborn20

Dec 17, 2014 19:57:45

mellored wrote:

Ashrym

Dec 17, 2014 20:51:44

I would rule against rod of the pact keeper and empowered evocation at the same time because empowered evocation only applies to wizard spells. I would allow empowered evocation from a standard spell slot if prepped from the wizard class plus elemental affinity since that isn't class specific. Using a known spell or a warlock spell slot disqualifies it as a non-wizard spell.

dragonfather

Dec 18, 2014 0:10:24

Sorcerer 6, Evocation Wizard 14.

20 cha, 20 int (only possible in point buy with a tome for a +2)

Magic initiate feat for hex

Wand of war mage +3

Assuming you can twin scorching ray if you only target one dude:

Hex the BBEG, then use a level 5 spell slot and twin scorching ray onto him. Maximize the spell. You end up with 3d6 +10 maxed per ray, with 12 rays. 28 per ray (22 fire, 6 necrotic) times 12 rays is 336 damage, assuming all rays hit. Any crits result in 18 extra damage each. Maximum theoretical with all crits (perhaps by being helpless) is 336 + 18*12 = 552.

If you have someone who can wish a hallow effect into existence to create vulnerability and strip resistances you could theoretically one shot everything but the tarrasque (which just reflects the rays)

Yunru

Dec 18, 2014 3:35:56

Nonsense, just go 8/12 instead, that way you get all the ABIs. I mean, maxed damage is nice so I'd consider it, but as you said: need more ABI.

#10

dragonfather

Dec 18, 2014 8:29:48

Without the maximize, your damage shoots way down. With 18 cha instead of 20, you lose 12 damage.

#11

Elfcrusher

Dec 18, 2014 9:28:11

What can you do with a maximum character level of 10?

Or maybe the interesting exercise is: for level 1-20 how can you optimize at every level?

#12

Yunru

Dec 18, 2014 9:41:53

For a Maximum level of 10? Warlock 4/Sorcerer 6. 2 short rest 2nd level spell slots to cast it with, it can benefit from Rod of the Pact Keeper and of course it has +Cha. That and you can Darkness + Devil's Sight to get advantage on all the rolls.

(Reply to #8)

Ashrym

dragonfather wrote:

#14

Elfcrusher

Dec 18, 2014 10:27:41

Oh I see, I didn't realize the Evocation bonus doesn't kick in until 10th. So minimum 16 to get the bonus to both.

Still, awfully fun once you get there. An Evoker/Draconic Sorcerer with 20 Cha and 20 Int and Twinned Spell? With a 5th level slot that's 12 rays each doing 2d6 + 10, correct? Even with average damage that's around 320 damage at level 16.

Then with the last 4 levels into Warlock you can get an awesome familiar and another 2 slots per short rest. Combined with Wizard's recovery that's 9 spell levels worth of casting every short rest.

If you want Elemental Adept and 2 20's you'd have to go variant Human, since you only get 4 Ability Increases.

EDIT: Oops, just saw Ashrym's reply. I'm only a little disappointed.

(Reply to #12)

Coredump00

Yunru wrote:

#16

mellored

Dec 18, 2014 11:51:06

Coredump00 wrote:

#17

Elfcrusher

Dec 18, 2014 12:08:40

mellored wrote:

#18

mellored

Dec 18, 2014 12:16:15

Elfcrusher wrote:

(Reply to #14)

Ashrym

Elfcrusher wrote:

#20

1eejit

Dec 18, 2014 23:51:07

Nice whiteroom, but if you rely to heavily on scorching ray you'll likely end up having most DMs throw a selection of the many fire resist/immune enemies at you :-)

#21

Yunru

Dec 19, 2014 1:07:25

If that happens then leave the table, your DM's a dick.

#22

1eejit

Dec 19, 2014 1:30:09

Sure, the DM is a dick if he doesn't like a min-maxer novaing every opponent...

(Reply to #20)

Ashrym

1eejit wrote:

(Reply to #22)

Yunru

1eejit wrote:

#25

1eejit

Dec 19, 2014 2:17:00

Or how about the DM should provide a challenge, even to a specialised min maxer?

#26

Yunru

Dec 19, 2014 2:26:07

Challenge =/= "Imma make you at best half as useful! Yay!"

If a player is min/maxing obviously he likes to kill dtuff easy. Thus killing stuff shouldn't be the challenge to the min/maxer. Instead do your job as a DM better and make encounters more than just "kill them all". Unless of course the entire party wants to have just "kill them all". In which case if they're min/maxing they're not looking for a challenge.

Which all boils down to my previous point: If your DM is throwing Fire resistant/immune monsters at you because you chose to specialize, you're DM is a dick and you're better of leaving.

(Reply to #26)

EzechielDantan

Yunru wrote:

#28

Yunru

Dec 19, 2014 3:28:27

For my table? We've had tonnes of fun? Why? Because "kill all the things" isn't the goal of encounters. Sure it can be a large part but we actually focus on the other two pillars as well.

And again, someone specialising in Scorching Ray is no different than a Fighter specialising in a Crossbow. Would you penalise a Fighter so?

#29

1eejit

Dec 19, 2014 3:27:45

Well you have to focus on the other two pillars entirely if every combat ends in a single round nova...

#30

Yunru

Dec 19, 2014 3:31:29

Well now you're just spewing hyperbole. I challenge you to find one published encounter where an appropriately leveled specialist can Nova every enemy first round.

(Reply to #21)

eleran

Yunru wrote:

#32

mellored

Dec 19, 2014 5:28:54

IMO: If players are dominating, a DM should add more or bigger monsters, rather then specificly screw over a patciualr build.

Running into a 6 mummies instead of 5, is alot easier then running into fire immune mummies.

(Reply to #31)

Yunru

eleran wrote:

(Reply to #32)

1eejit

mellored wrote:

#35

Elfcrusher

Dec 19, 2014 9:33:36

If the DM is doing it for personal reasons (e.g. "I hate this guy...") then, yeah, he's being a dick.

But there are different types of games, and if there's one minmaxer at a table of people who have non-optimized characters for story reasons*, then I don't think telling somebody "Sorry, my interpretation prevents that combination" isn't being a dick, it's adjudication for the good of the table.

*Just last night a player showed up at our AL table with a Wild Sorcerer. I said, "Really? You don't want a Dragon Sorc?" She said, "Nope, I really love wild magic," and smiled happily.

#36

mellored

Dec 19, 2014 10:07:57

1eejit wrote:

#37

Baphogoat

Dec 19, 2014 10:52:52

The DM is (probably) only being a dick if you see the fire resistant monsters ALL the time. But for one or a few encounters when it makes sense, seems like maybe he is challenging the party to find another solution.

(Reply to #8)

Yunru

Ashrym wrote:

#39

EzechielDantan

Dec 21, 2014 5:59:39

Yunru wrote:

#40

Yunru

Dec 21, 2014 6:44:50

No, it's not a matter of interpretation. There is a list, specifically called "Wizard Spells". Anything under that heading is therefore a Wizard Spell or it wouldn't be there. It's not "Wizard Spells When Taken By A Wizard", it's "Wizard Spells". There is no ambiguity.

#41

raleel

Dec 21, 2014 7:21:56

IME, it doesn't make sense to counter the players directly by making stuff appear that directly counters their powerful ability. You just take it into account, put something in that is the bait for that thing, let the player feel like a million bucks, then out everything else for the rest of the group. If the player is maximizing that hard, he likes to win. Let him win, but make the victories not really the whole battle. Yes, you just took down a dragon, but there are 30 gnolls that are the real threat here.

Speaking from personal experience and learning this the hard way, works like a champ.

(Reply to #40)

EzechielDantan

Yunru wrote:

#43

Yunru

Dec 21, 2014 7:45:03

There's a name for believing some labeled "X" is not in fact "X". It's called being wrong. The list defines them as what they are. To say a spell on the Sorcerer Spells list isn't a Sorcerer spell because it's cast by a Wizard is nonsense. It. Is. Defined. As such. Unless something else contradicts it, it will always be defined as such.

Long story short: your interpretation is unsupported and nonsensical. Harsh but true.

(Reply to #43)

EzechielDantan

Yunru wrote:

#45

Yunru

Dec 21, 2014 8:11:11

No. A spell that is on both the Cleric and Wizard list is both a Cleric and a Wizard spell. Thus the Wizard could cast it using his knowledge of magic, or a cleric using prayers to his god OR a Wizard/Cleric could cast it using one way augmented with the other. Or to make it more relevent: Scorching Ray is both a Wizard Spell and a Sorcerer Spell. Thus a Wizard/Sorcerer could cast it using his inate talent as a Sorcerer augemented by his knowledge of the spell as a Wizard.

Also: your argument is irrelevent. Whether a spell is Divine or Magical depends on how it's cast, not the spell itself. A Cleric/Wizard spell is still a Cleric/Wizard even if it was cast by a [insert third spell source class].

If anything the stubbornness is on your end. Especially considering your stance is supported by nothing tangible and mine is supported by an entire section of the PHB.

#46

mellored

Dec 21, 2014 8:44:59

If you prepaired it as your wizard spell, it's a wizard spell, and cast with Int. Likewise if you know it by being a sorcerer, it's a sorcerer spell, and cast with Cha. Slots don't matter and lists don't matter. each class is treated seperatly when it comes to what spells they have.

#47

Yunru

Dec 21, 2014 9:03:14

And can you quote your sources?

Each class is treated seperatedly when it comes to preparing and known spells. True. A spell prepared the Wizard way uses Int, a Sorcerer Cha. True. Either of those affects whether a spell is a X Spell or not? False. Hell, the fact you could choose to prepare it as class X or class Y is only possible because it is both a class X spell AND a class Y spell.

Or are you saying the generic "It's prepared as a wizard therefore it is a wizard spell" overrides "It's specifically defined as a Class X, Y and Z spell"?

I'd also like to point out that what class you are only effects whether you have access to a spell, not what sort of spell it is.

(Reply to #47)

Ashrym

Yunru wrote:

#49

Yunru

Dec 21, 2014 11:52:00

That sentence is in no way exclusive, nor does it prohibit spells being associated with multiple classes. Not only that, but it only refers to what spellcasting stat to use. Good try but next.

#50

Ganymede425

Dec 21, 2014 12:02:09

Help me out here. Why does it matter what class list the spell is on?

#51

Jay_Ibero_911

Dec 21, 2014 12:04:35

mellored wrote:

#52

mellored

Dec 21, 2014 13:37:40

"One of" is exclusive.

#53

Yunru

Dec 21, 2014 13:46:25

Yes, except the quote given is wrong, it doesn't actually end there, instead going on to say that the association is with relation to the spellcaster stat.

(Reply to #41)

Frozeman

raleel wrote:

(Reply to #50)

Ashrym

Ganymede425 wrote:

(Reply to #53)

Ashrym

Yunru wrote:

#57

Yunru

Dec 21, 2014 14:45:52

Nope.

Each spell you know and prepare is associated with one o f your classes, and you use the spellcasting ability o f that class when you cast the spell. Similarly, a spellcasting focus, such as a holy symbol, can be used only for the spells from the class associated with that focus.

(Reply to #55)

Ganymede425

Ashrym wrote:

(Reply to #57)

Ashrym

Yunru wrote:

(Reply to #58)

Ashrym

Ganymede425 wrote:

#61

mellored

Dec 22, 2014 5:10:26

Yunru wrote:

#62

Yunru

Dec 22, 2014 16:06:09

@_FoxyBoxes_ "What defines a spell as being, say, a Wizard spell? Is it its presence on the 'Wizard Spells' list?" @mikemearls

Yes.

#63

mellored

Dec 23, 2014 6:30:01

Yunru wrote:

#64

Yunru

Dec 23, 2014 7:05:27

Eh, you can still only cast with one foci right? Right?

#65

mellored

Dec 23, 2014 7:10:23

Yunru wrote:

#66

Yunru

Jan 06, 2015 16:48:35

This just in:

@_FoxyBoxes_ "if a spell is on more than one list, does it count for both (e.g. Scorching Ray Wiz/Sorc)?" @mikemearls
That's correct.

#67

Stormborn20

Jan 06, 2015 18:04:52

Yunru wrote:

#68

Coredump00

Jan 06, 2015 23:16:59

Asking a rules question without being clear of the intended use of the ruling, leads to unclear results.

asking Mearls leads to fairly useless rules answers.

We all agree that the spell is both a Wiz and Sorc spell... the question is if a single casting can count as both at the same time.

Try this one: A lvl 6 wizard casts Witch Bolt while holding a Rod of the Pact Keeper, would he get the bonus just because Witchbolt is on the wizard and warlock lists?

#69

Ashrym

Jan 07, 2015 0:10:05

You determine what spells you know and prepare from each class individually, each spell is associated with one of your classes, you use the ability modifier for the one class with which the spell is associated when you cast the spell, and a spell casting focus can be used only for the spells from the class associated with that focus. PHB pg 164

It still seems very clear that when you cast the spell it is associated with the one class from which it is known or prepared and treated accordingly.

#70

Yunru

Jan 07, 2015 0:19:37

Except it's not. No where there does it suggest that's how you determine whether a spell is an X Spell. Both times, however, the lead developer for rulings has tweeted to support the theory of "If it's under the list as an X Spell, then it's an X Spell. If it's also listed as a Y Spell then it's also a Y Spell."

The only thing the quoted passage tells us is that you have to apply one ability mod, based on which class spell(/cantrip) known slot you used. Nowhere does it suggest otherwise.

(Reply to #68)

Yunru

Coredump00 wrote:

(Reply to #70)

Ashrym

Yunru wrote:

#73

Yunru

Jan 07, 2015 1:07:51

Here's three Wizard spells:

Scorching Ray

Fireball

Shield

Agreed? That's three Wizard spells. Two of them are also Sorcerer spells. Your example defines nothing.

Also, good job at "convieniently" missing the other reason I wouldn't (couldn't actually) tweet it: the character limit.

(Reply to #71)

Coredump00

Yunru wrote:

(Reply to #74)

Yunru

Coredump00 wrote:

#76

7he_professor

Jan 07, 2015 7:21:00

The fact that some disagree proves that there are those that will not allow/use one of the options presented (warranted or not).

Can you please move on from this one rules issue, and present more options for tricking out Scorching Ray? Perhaps consider using two sets of possibilities: 1 if you agree with the ruling, 1 if you don't.

It's really not that big of a deal...

#77

ORC_Animus

Jan 07, 2015 8:27:15

I’ve removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting/personal attacks are violations of the Code of Conduct.

You can review the Code of Conduct here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct

Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.

If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.

(Reply to #74)

Yunru

Coredump00 wrote:

(Reply to #78)

Coredump00

Yunru wrote:

#80

Yunru

Jan 07, 2015 9:05:27

If you're Warlock 1 as well, yes. If it didn't have that restriction, yes. The fact that it has the restriction even reinforces my case. If it didn't need the restriction, why have it?

#81

Coredump00

Jan 07, 2015 10:57:47

Likely because only a Warlock would benefit from it. Just like a Pearl of Power can only be attuned by a spellcaster. Only a spell caster would beneft from it.

The Rod would also cause rule issues by giving a non-warlock a warlock spell slot....

#82

Yunru

Jan 13, 2015 11:57:32

@_FoxyBoxes_ "Rod only effects Warlock spells. Empowered Evoc. only effects Wizard Spells. If it's on both lists does it get both +s?" Yes.

#83

Coredump00

Jan 13, 2015 12:13:41

Looking at some of his other rulings, I am not overly surprised... but still somewhat surprised.

Good to have an answer.

(Reply to #76)

Yunru

7he_professor wrote:

#85

Stormborn20

Jan 13, 2015 13:51:26

Yunru wrote:

(Reply to #85)

Coredump00

Stormborn20 wrote:

#87

Huntsman57

Jan 13, 2015 16:10:20

Is there someplace where all these post rule book dev calls are compiled? I'm not entirely certain where you guys get this info.

#88

Coredump00

Jan 13, 2015 16:45:17

http://www.sageadvice.eu/

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/with_replies

(Reply to #88)

Huntsman57

Coredump00 wrote:

#90

Ashrym

Jan 13, 2015 21:19:18

Coredump00 wrote:

#91

Yunru

Jan 14, 2015 2:21:20

Personally I blame the character limit.

(Reply to #90)

Coredump00

Ashrym wrote:

(Reply to #92)

EzechielDantan

Coredump00 wrote:

#94

Yunru

Jan 14, 2015 9:25:52

So now we have confirmation... both ways.

#95

Coredump00

Jan 14, 2015 10:33:20

Not really. The issue was if both benefits could be used simultaneously..... that was pretty clearly answered after a chain of tweets clarifying the question..

(Reply to #93)

Coredump00

EzechielDantan wrote:

#97

Stormborn20

Jan 15, 2015 18:31:34

I think I get it now. If you multiclass Wizard(evocation)/Warlock(fiend) and learn scorching ray "as a warlock spell" -- by which I mean when you gain a warlock level and have it count against your known spells rather than being written into your spellbook and prepared -- then you may still choose to cast scorching ray as either a wizard spell or a warlock spell. If you cast it as a wizard spell, you would use Int as your spellcasting ability and apply may apply empowered evocation. If you cast it as a warlock spell, you would use Cha as your spellcasting ability and would not apply empowered evocation.

You know what, I really kind of like this interpretation.