9
\$\begingroup\$

If you transmute Ennervation to another element, do you still benefit from the healing? The spell reads as follows:

Whenever the spell deals damage to a target, you regain hit points equal to half the amount of necrotic damage the target takes.

But considering the healing aspect is a vital part of the spell, and this was introduced before the Transmuted Metamagic was released, I wondered if it would remain so and should remain so.

\$\endgroup\$
0
19
\$\begingroup\$

You Can't Transmute Enervation

The Transmuted Spell metamagic states the following:

When you cast a spell that deals a type of damage from the following list, you can spend 1 sorcery point to change that damage type to one of the other listed types: acid, cold, fire, lightning, poison, thunder.

Because the enervation spell deals necrotic damage, you can't use this metamagic with the spell.


This might lead you to then ask, well what if we houseruled that you could use Transmute Spell with it? In that instance, yes, because you houseruled that you can (or probably should to keep it fun*).

The Transmute Spell metamagic simply changes the damage type, but it wouldn't be unreasonable to extend that change to the healing text. The thematic reason for why this alternative damage type heals you is up to you as the player to decide if your table elects to allow this house rule.

If you elect to not houserule in that way, you wouldn't be able to receive any healing on the initial casting. Subsequent reapplications of the damage would be necrotic because Transmuted Spell only changes the damage type when you cast the spell.

*I make this statement because enervation isn't the only spell which would have this problem if you didn't. It would also effect vampiric touch and life transference.

\$\endgroup\$
5
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ The spell says "you regain hit points equal to half the amount of necrotic damage the target takes." If you think Transmute Spell changes the damage type and also changes the type of the damage that heals you, that's a valid perspective, but you should include an argument for why that should be. \$\endgroup\$
    – Dan B
    Apr 5 at 21:41
  • \$\begingroup\$ @DanB I think you're right, they'd be screwed out of the healing from a strict house rule / RAW interpretation. However, I did want to expand on the consequences of ruling that way since even allowing it was into house rule territory. \$\endgroup\$ Apr 5 at 22:12
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @DanB It would be kinda weird for the spell to not function just because you changed the damage type. It makes more sense that changing the type of damage it deals to fire would also change what type of damage being dealt heals you (in a "change all instances of [damage] to [other damage] in the spell" sort of sense). Besides, at that point we're already into homebrew territory, so RAW is irrelevant. \$\endgroup\$ Apr 6 at 5:35
  • \$\begingroup\$ @BaconyRevenant The explicit mention of necrotic damage on the spell just reinforces what it is said about the valid types of damage you can transmutate to with metamagic. Simply, necrotic damage was never intended to be one of those. \$\endgroup\$
    – Rekesoft
    Apr 6 at 11:10
  • \$\begingroup\$ Arguably RAI on this spell is "you regain hit points equal to half the amount of damage this spell dealt", and it is just poorly worded. \$\endgroup\$
    – Brilliand
    Apr 6 at 19:58

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.