6
\$\begingroup\$

I noticed that the Elemental Adept feat states (emphasis mine):

[...] when you roll damage for a spell you cast that deals damage of that type, you can treat any 1 on a damage die as a 2. [...]

Does this mean the feat applies to spells like flame strike which deal 4d6 fire damage and 4d6 radiant damage?

In other words, would taking Elemental Adept (fire), casting flame strike, and rolling a 1 on a radiant damage die allow me to treat that 1 as a 2 even though its damage type does not match the damage type I chose with Elemental Adept?

\$\endgroup\$
6
\$\begingroup\$

That's a valid interpretation

As written, there is no explicit limitation of the "damage die" to only those that do that type of damage.

However, reading the sentence as a whole, it is an equally valid interpretation that the first part should be read as "when you roll damage (for a spell you cast) that deals damage of that type".

To avoid disappointment, ask your DM how they will read it because their interpretation is the only one that matters.

\$\endgroup\$
2
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ I'm a little unsure about the second interpretation you propose. When you roll damage with mixed damage types, that's still "one roll". So to reword the sentence; "When you roll damage that deals damage of that type, for a spell you cast, ..." in that case wouldn't Flame Strike still be rolling fire damage so you would be able to apply the effect to any die in that spell? I think the wording needed to achieve the effect would need to be "When casting a spell, if a damage die that would deal fire damage ...". I am struggling to parse that meaning from the rules as written. \$\endgroup\$ Jun 23 '20 at 7:05
  • \$\begingroup\$ If they intended the feat to apply to other damage types in the same spell, then that would have been specified. As it is, it can only apply to the fire damage, and not to the radiant damage. There's no in-game logic that suggests that radiant damage would also be improved by a fire-related feat. \$\endgroup\$
    – Penanghill
    Jul 2 '20 at 9:24
1
\$\begingroup\$

I think we are all in agreement that the Elemental Adept (Fire) Feat, Rules as Written, should allow for the potentially increased damage to the radiant damage portion of Flame Strike.

The divide comes for those who consider the Feat not clearly worded, and Rules as Intended to exclude the radiant damage dice.

In reflecting on how other rulings might help us think about this, what comes to my mind are the rulings on Critical hits and "extra damage".

How does extra damage work for critical hits?

If an exceptionally well-placed sword blow (slashing) is intended to allow a paladin extra damage dice on the subsequent Divine Smite (radiant), that to me is enough to argue that the elemental (fire) feat is intended to apply to the additional radiant damage as well, unless and until something specifically disallowing it is official.

\$\endgroup\$
0
\$\begingroup\$

By RAW, yes. That's how I would rule it and I think most DMs would agree, but that's their call.

The wording of the feat says:

When you roll damage for a spell you cast that deals damage of that type, you can treat any 1 on a damage die as a 2.

Since it doesn't specifically list that this applies to only damage of the type done by the spell, in my mind, that means that it applies to all damage dealt by the spell.

\$\endgroup\$
0
-2
\$\begingroup\$

Elemental Adept applies to damage of a certain type. Because in your example it applies to fire damage, it will only apply to fire damage from the spell Flame Strike.

You can try to extend it via strict readings of the description of the feat, but at my table, you'll get it only on fire damage.

\$\endgroup\$
1
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I'm not seeing where it says that the rerolls only apply to fire damage, it just says that it applies "when you roll damage for a spell you cast that deals fire damage". It seems to me that Flame Strike deals fire damage, so when we roll damage it should apply, right? I can appreciate that you would rule otherwise, but I'm not sure what that's based on besides a thematic understanding. \$\endgroup\$ Jun 23 '20 at 7:02

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.