D&D (2024) Celestial Warlock's Radiant Soul got a buff

[AdmundfortGeographer]

I don't believe so. Just like True Strike isn't a spell attack, but a spell that lets you make a weapon attack, Summon Celestial is not a spell that deals Radiant damage but a spell that summons a creature. What the creature does after that is its own business.

I’m running a celestial warlock and what you described is the ruling we’ve played at our table.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Does the summoned celestial’s attacks count as the spell doing the damage?

Its still a spell that you cast (and are maintaining concentration on) that is dealing the damage. I'd say that it would work with Flaming Sphere, so it would also work with Summon Celestial. Bear in mind that the "once per turn" restriction is going to prevent it from being particularly powerful there.

From reading the spell, it would increase the damage of Guardian of Faith as well, but also make it end sooner. (As always, ask your DM.)

 

[ezo]

What's the difference? Spells that stay in play.

I don't think you're reading it correctly.

2014:

Radiant Soul, XGE p54​

Starting at 6th level, your link to the Celestial allows you to serve as a conduit for radiant energy. You have resistance to radiant damage, and when you cast a spell that deals radiant or fire damage, you can add your Charisma modifier to one radiant or fire damage roll of that spell against one of its targets.

vs.
2024:

Level 6: Radiant Soul​

Your link to your patron allows you to serve as a conduit for radiant energy. You have Resistance to Radiant damage. Once per turn, when a spell you cast deals Radiant or Fire damage, you can add your Charisma modifier to that spell's damage against one of the spell's targets.

If anything, it is actually weaker... The limitation of once per turn means if you cast two spells on your turn which deal Radiant or Fire Damage, you only get to add the Charisma modifier once to ONE spell, not both. Granted, you probably won't be casting two spells in one turn often, but it can happen. In the 2014 version, you would add your extra damage to BOTH spells because it lacks the once per turn qualifying clause.

You only get to add the damage "when a spell you cast deals damage", on later rounds, you are not casting it on that turn any longer.

Let's not do this tangled web of present tense vs. past tense for cast again... The use of cast is obviously in the present tense, not the past tense. Damage is dealt in the present moment in the game. If the spell was meant to work as you are reading it, they would have specified is as such.

There was nothing preventing them sticking with the old wording as they did with so much. I can therefore only conclude that the change was intentional.

Correct, they changed it to prevent it from allowing it to work on multiple spells cast on the same turn.

Not because it allows you to add it to on going damage on later rounds after the spell has been cast. It only works on the turn when the spell is cast.

There's no difference between did cast vs have cast. And because both the present and past tense of cast is cast, guess we'll never know!

There is a difference though. You cannot use the past tense here. Damage is applied in the present and it would be a disagreement of tenses. In order to do as the OP intends, it would have to be worded differently.

It can also be read as a nerf.

Before you could use it on more than one spell. Now it is only one spell per turn that can benefit.

Which is the correct interpretation of the change.

All that being the case, if a group wanted to allow the CHA extra damage to be applied on later turns of concentration spells or whatever, it certainly wouldn't be a big deal to allow it. Considering all the other changes in 2024, it would seem a minor power bump.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Its still a spell that you cast (and are maintaining concentration on) that is dealing the damage. I'd say that it would work with Flaming Sphere, so it would also work with Summon Celestial. Bear in mind that the "once per turn" restriction is going to prevent it from being particularly powerful there.

Personally I’d advocate that the celestial spirit gains the class feature boost. I was out voted on our table, most importantly the DM didn’t think so. I think my table were a giving my character side eye with my sitting back and eldritch blasting plus the spirit radiant arrow attacks as … much.

But by the reasoning, the Healer origin feat to re-roll healing dice from spells would apply to the celestial spirits’ healing dice too.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

There is a difference though. You cannot use the past tense here. Damage is applied in the present and it would be a disagreement of tenses. In order to do as the OP intends, it would have to be worded differently.

There is no disagreement of tenses. 'when a spell you cast deals damage' is the same as 'when a spell (that you now cast or previously cast) deals damage' - the SPELL is the focus here, the trigger, the 'you cast' part may just be an identifier for the spell.

In the old text, 'when you cast a spell that deals damage', there it's YOU casting a spell that is the trigger, and it happens very much in the present turn, no arguments there. If that's what they meant, they could/should have just reused that.

 

[ezo]

There is no disagreement of tenses. 'when a spell you cast deals damage' is the same as 'when a spell (that you now cast or previously cast) deals damage' - the SPELL is the focus here, the trigger, the 'you cast' part may just be an identifier for the spell.

There most certainly is a disagreement, but this issue of present vs. past tenses has been gone over other times in 5E ad naseum. I am not going to waste time rehashing it.

I'll refer you to this page to educate yourself of the differences: The verb "to cast" in English

If you find that insufficient, I'll allow others to continue to debate it with you. As I said, I am not rehashing this yet again.

Simply put, the new version is more restrictive to prevent people from using the feature twice on the same turn. That is the only reason for it. If they meant otherwise, they would have specified it in additional language in the feature text.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

I'll refer you to this page to educate yourself of the differences: The verb "to cast" in English

Thank you, that page perfectly supports me.

'How do I get out of this mage prison?'
'You cast Knock.'

'How did I get out of that mage prison?'
'You cast Knock.'

If only english used 'casted' for past things, then the new rules text wouldn't be ambiguous.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Simply put, the new version is more restrictive to prevent people from using the feature twice on the same turn. That is the only reason for it. If they meant otherwise, they would have specified it in additional language in the feature text.

Simply put this appears to be complete balderdash. Although it is theoretically possible to put together a Sorlock that can use it twice on a turn this was always weaker than making your quickened cantrip an agonizing Eldritch Blast. And I can't think of a single bonus action fire or radiant spell on the warlock list. Why therefore do you think it was done to nerf something that was likely never actually done in any actual game of D&D 5e?

Meanwhile the idea that this was done deliberately to buff what was previously a basically useless class feature by allowing it to apply to spells you have cast rather than just spells when you cast them makes complete sense.

 

[ezo]

Thank you, that page perfectly supports me.

You need to read about more than the basic present and past tenses. Then you will learn it does not support your position.

'How do I get out of this mage prison?'
'You cast Knock.'

'How did I get out of that mage prison?'
'You cast Knock.'

Again, only basic present and past tenses. English (for better or worse) is more complex than that.

If only english used 'casted' for past things, then the new rules text wouldn't be ambiguous.

They aren't ambiguous.

Once per turn, when a spell you cast... You have to cast a spell on your turn for the feature to apply. It is present tense. If it applied on subsequent rounds, it would say "Once per turn, when a spell you have cast..." You require the Present Perfect tense to accomplish what the OP believe is the case. This allows for the spell to be cast in the past and the effect of the feature to be on going in the present when it deals damage on subsequent rounds.

That's as much effort as I am going to put into this. If the intent of the designers was otherwise, it will become clear when they address this, and they will adjust the wording accordingly. When they have something that applies in this manner, they do more to "spell things out (no pun intended)".

Why therefore do you think it was done to nerf something that was likely never actually done in any actual game of D&D 5e?

It has been done. Thanks to TCoE and the Metamagic feat it is easy to gain and "abuse". Frankly, I never found it to be too powerful given the cost, but its there whether you give it credance or not.

Meanwhile the idea that this was done deliberately to buff what was previously a basically useless class feature by allowing it to apply to spells you have cast rather than just spells when you cast them makes complete sense.

Hardly useless, but as I said, if this was their intent it will be made clear. Given all the other buffs they've put in 2024, why not LOL!?!

 

[Neonchameleon]

You need to read about more than the basic present and past tenses. Then you will learn it does not support your position.

You need to check your basics.

Once per turn, when a spell you cast... You have to cast a spell on your turn for the feature to apply.

This is a deceptive edit based on a sentence fragment and ignoring the role of punctuation. At the most trivial you are wrong that you have to cast the spell on your turn; Hellish Rebuke is a spell you cast on someone else's turn but gets the extra damage. And gets it even if you cast a different fire spells on your turn.

What the text actually says if you include the entire clause is "Once per turn, when a spell you cast deals Radiant or Fire damage, ..." The trigger is not casting the spell. It's doing fire or radiant damage.

It is present tense. If it applied on subsequent rounds, it would say "Once per turn, when a spell you have cast..."

Another grammar fail. "A spell you have cast" is in the perfect tense and would therefore by a strict reading only apply after you cast it.

Meanwhile how do we know your way is wrong? Because if they had intended it to only apply when you cast the spell they would have left the text as "when you cast a spell that deals radiant or fire damage". They could have added the once per turn clause without changing that.

You require the Present Perfect tense to accomplish what the OP believe is the case.

Or you require cast to be an irregular verb where the present and the past tense are the same so the same word covers both. Only a prescriptivist would make the claim that you require a specific odd tense - and English isn't a language where prescriptivism holds any sway.

It has been done. Thanks to TCoE and the Metamagic feat it is easy to gain and "abuse". Frankly, I never found it to be too powerful given the cost, but its there whether you give it credance or not.

Done by who? Because it was as you say never worth it given the cost. And given that it wasn't worth it the idea that they would bother to close that loophole makes no sense.

Meanwhile the idea that they would put in a buff to a basically almost useless ability while using the English language the way an ordinary native English speaker would makes perfect sense.

And just to reiterate "When you cast a spell that deals damage" doesn't have the same subject as "when a spell you cast deals damage".