Paladin Errata?

[LibraryOgre]

So, I went and checked the official errata, and noted an interesting piece that may need to be addressed.

In the Paladin's version of Great Weapon fighting, there is no statement that the second roll must be used, like there is in the fighter's version.

This is not addressed in the official version.

[EvilAnagram]

You should apply to be an editor at WotC,

Just saying.

[PallentisLunam]

Blessed by the grace of their god(s) paladins never roll minimum damage no matter what.

Or more likely a mistake that didn't make it into the errata.

Edit: Wait a second, just checked my book, it's right there in black and white:
[A paladin] can reroll the die and must use the new roll.

[Desamir]

I must be missing something. Which errata are you referring to?

Here's the text I see in the book and the SRD:


When you roll a 1 or 2 on a damage die for an attack you make with a melee weapon that you are wielding with two hands, you can reroll the die and must use the new roll.

[Theodoxus]

The only difference I see is the end...

Fighter: "...you can reroll the die and must use the new roll, even if the new roll is a 1 or a 2."

Paladin" "...you can reroll the die and must use the new roll. The weapon must..."

Not sure if that's what Mark is talking about or not... nor what difference it makes. I think the fighter is clearer, but the implication for the paladin is the same.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

The SRD has wording that says "You can reroll the die and must use the new roll"

Also, I like how it says die and not dice. I wonder if they meant that you can only reroll one die and take the result OR you can roll both but only take one.:smalltongue:

[Foxhound438]

The SRD has wording that says "You can reroll the die and must use the new roll"

Also, I like how it says die and not dice. I wonder if they meant that you can only reroll one die and take the result OR you can roll both but only take one.:smalltongue:
you would reroll each die that triggers it, otherwise it would say "only one". (see Spell Bombardment for wild sorc for an example of a case of that notation.)

[SpawnOfMorbo]

you would reroll each die that triggers it, otherwise it would say "only one". (see Spell Bombardment for wild sorc for an example of a case of that notation.)

"you can reroll the die and must use the new roll".

No plural there. Using plain English they are speaking about 1 damage die, not damage dice. Even the start of it is a bit fiddly and weird. Typically when they mean multiple dice they will say dice. They didn't say dice here, they said damage die.


Not that I care much, just something I noticed.

[Longcat]

Has there been an official errata for the interaction between Great Weapon Fighting and Divine Smite? All I found was conflicting rulings between Mearls and Crawford.

[E’Tallitnics]

Has there been an official errata for the interaction between Great Weapon Fighting and Divine Smite? All I found was conflicting rulings between Mearls and Crawford.

Weapon only: http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/11/13/great-weapon-fighting-rerolling-smite-hex-and-hunters-mark/

[Desamir]

"you can reroll the die and must use the new roll".

No plural there. Using plain English they are speaking about 1 damage die, not damage dice. Even the start of it is a bit fiddly and weird. Typically when they mean multiple dice they will say dice. They didn't say dice here, they said damage die.


Not that I care much, just something I noticed.

The full sentence says "when you roll a 1 or 2 on a damage die." It triggers once per die rolled, not once per attack.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

The full sentence says "when you roll a 1 or 2 on a damage die." It triggers once per die rolled, not once per attack.

The wording is that yes, you roll both, but you only take one.

Because they never use the word dice and keep using the word die.

I get where they was coming from, but they need to use plural words like in other instances.

[Desamir]

The wording is that yes, you roll both, but you only take one.

Because they never use the word dice and keep using the word die.

I get where they was coming from, but they need to use plural words like in other instances.

I think you misunderstand. The full sentence is "When you roll a 1 or 2 on a damage die for an attack you make with a melee weapon that you are wielding with two hands, you can reroll the die and must use the new roll."

When you make an attack with a greatsword, you roll two d6s. For each individual d6 that you roll, GWF style's trigger ("when you roll a 1 or 2 on a damage die...") is satisfied, and the result ("you can reroll the die and must use the new roll") occurs. Since it triggers separately for each die that is rolled, the singular form is appropriate. It does work properly as written.

That said, like many things in the PHB, this could have been written better.

[EvilAnagram]

If the law said, "Anyone who steals a hat must pay a $20 fine," and you stole two hats, the fine would apply twice because you fulfilled its condition twice. You cannot claim that the law says "a" hat, but says nothing about multiple hats. The law has declared a condition that, when met, triggers a specific fine. If the condition occurs multiple times, multiple fines apply.

In the wording of GWF, the feature allows you to reroll a damage die when it's a 1 or a 2. If the condition triggers twice, there is nothing to prevent you from using the feature twice.

[LordVonDerp]

Has there been an official errata for the interaction between Great Weapon Fighting and Divine Smite? All I found was conflicting rulings between Mearls and Crawford.

Officially it works for all the damage, weapon and smite.

[E’Tallitnics]

Has there been an official errata for the interaction between Great Weapon Fighting and Divine Smite? All I found was conflicting rulings between Mearls and Crawford.

Weapon dice only: http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/12/22/does-great-wepon-fighting-let-you-reroll-all-of-the-attacks-damage-dice/

[SpawnOfMorbo]

If the law said, "Anyone who steals a hat must pay a $20 fine," and you stole two hats, the fine would apply twice because you fulfilled its condition twice. You cannot claim that the law says "a" hat, but says nothing about multiple hats. The law has declared a condition that, when met, triggers a specific fine. If the condition occurs multiple times, multiple fines apply.

In the wording of GWF, the feature allows you to reroll a damage die when it's a 1 or a 2. If the condition triggers twice, there is nothing to prevent you from using the feature twice.

Dude, have you never talked to a lawyer before?

I showed this to my friend, he prays that his next case is against someone that thinks like you. He would have a field day.

[Longcat]

Officially it works for all the damage, weapon and smite.


Weapon dice only: http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/12/22/does-great-wepon-fighting-let-you-reroll-all-of-the-attacks-damage-dice/

I'm getting some mixed signals here. How does AL handle it?

My players tend to rules lawyer for "works with everything."

[Quintessence]

I'm getting some mixed signals here. How does AL handle it?

My players tend to rules lawyer for "works with everything."

It was very obviously intended to only work with the weapon dice, it is the great weapon fighting style... Not the great weapon and smiting style.

[MeeposFire]

It was very obviously intended to only work with the weapon dice, it is the great weapon fighting style... Not the great weapon and smiting style.


Not that it matters much. Remember this is the group of designers that decided that using feats like polearm master are not designed to work with other things (like spells at least until they made the booming blade type spells anyway) but then said that the effects like the no disadvantage from using ranged attacks in melee was intended for all ranged attacks, and not just crossbows, if you take crossbow expert. The tone can be very inconsistent. Sometimes they can be very RAW oriented and then in other times they advise not to be.

[Desamir]

Not that it matters much. Remember this is the group of designers that decided that using feats like polearm master are not designed to work with other things (like spells at least until they made the booming blade type spells anyway) but then said that the effects like the no disadvantage from using ranged attacks in melee was intended for all ranged attacks, and not just crossbows, if you take crossbow expert. The tone can be very inconsistent. Sometimes they can be very RAW oriented and then in other times they advise not to be.

Bingo. The fact that Crossbow Expert works with spells punctures every argument about "how X is obviously intended to work."

[Theodoxus]

I've of two minds regarding the reading of damage die.

Had the feature been written as "When you roll a 1 or 2 on any damage die for an attack..." then I could certainly see a case for the feature to apply to any dice that were rolled for that attack.

However, when viewed through that lens, and then re-translated back to the original "When you roll a 1 or 2 on a damage die for an attack..." the meaning remains the same.

I don't play AL, so I don't know what the official interpretation for this feature is, but going forward, I'm going to let it apply to any dice that are affected. Smite, Hex, Superiority dice and Hunter abilities are the only things I can think of off the top of my head... and it's such a marginal increase in damage that I figure why not make your players happy... it's not like you get to keep re-rolling 1s and 2s on the same attack. Sometimes that 2 ends up a 1 - and one must simply give a Nelson laugh.