Is this legal

[Sir cryosin]

If I have the fighting style great weapon fighting and I'm using a Greatsword and I can't green flame blade in attack with my Greatsword can I roll any of the damaged eye for the spell I ask this because the fighting style States that you can reroll any damage done that you that you make when you make a melee attack with a two-handed weapon

[Gastronomie]

While your sentence structure and mis-spelling require a DC 15 INT check to decipher, I would say that most DMs will permit it, not because it's legal or illegal, but because there's absolutely nothing overpowered about it, and also because it's perfectly logical.

Balance ≧ Logic > RAW.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

You'll find a lot of spots in these boards that debate this, usually with regards to Paladin Smites and GWF. Same idea though, does GWF apply to extra damage dice used in an attack?

There is a small difference here wherein you aren't explicitly taking the attack action, but rather the "Cast a spell" action, though you are making an attack as part of that spell. The wording on GWF is vague enough that Greenflame Blade (or booming blade) would still fall under GWF. "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..."

I'd be very inclined to allow it, as mathmatically GWF, in itself, is on the weak side if you only apply it to weapon dice. The interpretation that allows for more synergy is also more interesting without being overpowered.

[Plaguescarred]

Great-Weapon Fighting only let you reroll attack weapon's damage not spell damage. See Sage Advice:

If you use Great Weapon Fighting with a feature like Divine Smite or a spell like hex, do you get to reroll any 1 or 2 you roll for the extra damage? The Great Weapon Fighting feature—which is shared by fighters and paladins—is meant to benefit only the damage roll of the weapon used with the feature. For example, if you use a greatsword with the feature, you can reroll any 1 or 2 you roll on the weapon’s 2d6. If you’re a paladin and use Divine Smite with the greatsword, Great Weapon Fighting doesn’t let you reroll a 1 or 2 that you roll for the damage of Divine Smite. The main purpose of this limitation is to prevent the tedium of excessive rerolls. Many of the limits in the game are aimed at inhibiting slowdowns. Having no limit would also leave the door open for Great Weapon Fighting to grant more of a damage boost than we intended, although the potential for that is minimal compared to the likelihood that numerous rerolls would bog the game down.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

Inserting obligatory "Sage advice is contradictory, un-intuitive, unnecessarily conservative, not RAW and generally no better than any other advice that you'd get from any experienced DM." here.

[Gastronomie]

Sage advice is only for when an inexperimenced DM isn't sure what to do.

The DM has final say anywhere in any game. And that being said, these "is this legal by RAW" topics are generally really meaningless, given the easiest solution is to ask and consult your DM before the actual session. Even if everyone here said it's okay, if your DM says "SCREW THE RULES I'M THE DM", it wouldn't work.

I, as a DM, screw the rules quite often (I generally try to allow most of the stuff the players suggest, though).

[Sir cryosin]

While your sentence structure and mis-spelling require a DC 15 INT check to decipher, I would say that most DMs will permit it, not because it's legal or illegal, but because there's absolutely nothing overpowered about it, and also because it's perfectly logical.

Balance ≧ Logic > RAW.

Sorry about that I was using the talking feature on my phone. And I was being rushed to do something so I didn't check the grammer.

[MrStabby]

It's a damage die, it was for an attack, and that attack was made with a weapon with the heavy property - these are the only conditions that need to be met RAW for this feature to apply (RADMI may vary).

Errata may be issued later, but for now its fine.

[coredump]

Inserting obligatory "Sage advice is contradictory, un-intuitive, unnecessarily conservative, not RAW and generally no better than any other advice that you'd get from any experienced DM." here.

While I strongly disagree with your characterization of the SA answers. WotC also disagrees with you.
WotC has granted JC the authority to make official clarifications and even changes to the official (ie RAW) rules.

Does not mean a DM has to follow them, no more than they have to follow anything in the PHB, DMG, etc. But to claim they are 'not RAW and 'just advice' is erroneous.

[Gastronomie]

While I strongly disagree with your characterization of the SA answers. WotC also disagrees with you.
WotC has granted JC the authority to make official clarifications and even changes to the official (ie RAW) rules.

Does not mean a DM has to follow them, no more than they have to follow anything in the PHB, DMG, etc. But to claim they are 'not RAW and 'just advice' is erroneous.Yeah, but the DM still doesn't have to follow them.

The important part is that it's "generally no better than any other advice that you'd get from any experienced DM" (what GWJ said), and that "DMs still have final say".

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

While I strongly disagree with your characterization of the SA answers. WotC also disagrees with you.
WotC has granted JC the authority to make official clarifications and even changes to the official (ie RAW) rules.

Does not mean a DM has to follow them, no more than they have to follow anything in the PHB, DMG, etc. But to claim they are 'not RAW and 'just advice' is erroneous.

I swore no fealty to this "king".

[dev6500]

While I strongly disagree with your characterization of the SA answers. WotC also disagrees with you.
WotC has granted JC the authority to make official clarifications and even changes to the official (ie RAW) rules.

Does not mean a DM has to follow them, no more than they have to follow anything in the PHB, DMG, etc. But to claim they are 'not RAW and 'just advice' is erroneous.

I do not dislike the sage advice or the twitter rules clarifications but I tend to think that they do not serve any real purpose. 90% of the time a person asks a question that boils down to does x interaction of 2 things work this way where either yes or no leads to a noticeable power increase and 90% of the time the response is the answer that leads to the weaker option. At which point, it isn't really resolving an issue for anyone because most of the time everyone already knows that what the sage/twitter response is going to be.

[MrStabby]

While I strongly disagree with your characterization of the SA answers. WotC also disagrees with you.
WotC has granted JC the authority to make official clarifications and even changes to the official (ie RAW) rules.


Whilst I agree with this, I think it might be misleading for some people as they may misinterpret it as applying to sage advice, rather than the rules errata that get issued.

Worth pointing out that the "official clarifications" and "even changes" are in the errata not SA.

[DracoKnight]

I swore no fealty to this "king".

"F*ck the king." ~Sandor Clegane

I like some of the Sage Advice rulings, but the one about the GWFS was just stupid.

[Plaguescarred]

Inserting obligatory "Sage advice is contradictory, un-intuitive, unnecessarily conservative, not RAW and generally no better than any other advice that you'd get from any experienced DM." here.Since the advices of any other experience DM can also often be contradictory or mistaken and Sage Advice is issued directly by WoTC R&D staff, it is generally viewed as better by most people in the D&D community. You are free to disagree or dislike it of course.

[coredump]

Yeah, but the DM still doesn't have to follow them.

The important part is that it's "generally no better than any other advice that you'd get from any experienced DM" (what GWJ said), and that "DMs still have final say".


I do not dislike the sage advice or the twitter rules clarifications but I tend to think that they do not serve any real purpose. 90% of the time a person asks a question that boils down to does x interaction of 2 things work this way where either yes or no leads to a noticeable power increase and 90% of the time the response is the answer that leads to the weaker option. At which point, it isn't really resolving an issue for anyone because most of the time everyone already knows that what the sage/twitter response is going to be.




I like some of the Sage Advice rulings, but the one about the GWFS was just stupid.

*Of course* any DM is allowed to disregard and not follow any rule, from Sage Advice or from the PHB. Heck, I am pretty sure I said *exactly* that in my post. (even using those exact words)

But this is not 'simply advice', it is a clarification of the rules. You can ignore the rules, you can change the rules, you can create new rules. But it is a fallacy to pretend that Sage Advice is not comprised of actual, official, WotC approved, RAW.





Whilst I agree with this, I think it might be misleading for some people as they may misinterpret it as applying to sage advice, rather than the rules errata that get issued.

Worth pointing out that the "official clarifications" and "even changes" are in the errata not SA.
And you are factually incorrect. WotC has stated that JC (and only JC) has the authority to make rule clarifications and changes. This goes beyond the erratas, and even explicitly provides Sage Advice and Tweets as examples.

[RickAllison]

*Of course* any DM is allowed to disregard and not follow any rule, from Sage Advice or from the PHB. Heck, I am pretty sure I said *exactly* that in my post. (even using those exact words)

But this is not 'simply advice', it is a clarification of the rules. You can ignore the rules, you can change the rules, you can create new rules. But it is a fallacy to pretend that Sage Advice is not comprised of actual, official, WotC approved, RAW.




And you are factually incorrect. WotC has stated that JC (and only JC) has the authority to make rule clarifications and changes. This goes beyond the erratas, and even explicitly provides Sage Advice and Tweets as examples.

Do note that this same endorsement does NOT apply to Mearls. JC's words have a great amount of worth behind them and are just short of errata in their worth, but Mearls' tweets have about as much weight as any other experienced DM's.

[Plaguescarred]

Do note that this same endorsement does NOT apply to Mearls. JC's words have a great amount of worth behind them and are just short of errata in their worth, but Mearls' tweets have about as much weight as any other experienced DM's.I agree with you and IIRC, they even said themselves at some point that Mike Mearls' tweets were more like DM advice while Jeremy Crawford's tweets more rule-based.

I see Sage Advice like FAQ in previous editions. It's only there to clarify things that might be confusing or ambigous, while the Erratas are there to actually amend or modify existing rules.

[KorvinStarmast]

I swore no fealty to this "king". Last guy who said that got drawn and quartered. :smalleek:


"F*ck the king." ~Sandor Clegane He didn't have good luck and died of his wounds gone septic, alone, on the side of a hill. :smalleek:
YMMV.

[DracoKnight]

He didn't have good luck and died of his wounds gone septic, alone, on the side of a hill. :smalleek:
YMMV.

I don't care, because I'm in the most recent season - but you should tag things like that in a spoiler. So that someone just getting into the show doesn't get something like that spoiled for them.

[krugaan]

He didn't have good luck and died of his wounds gone septic, alone, on the side of a hill. :smalleek:
YMMV.

Did he, though?

[NewDM]

If I have the fighting style great weapon fighting and I'm using a Greatsword and I can't green flame blade in attack with my Greatsword can I roll any of the damaged eye for the spell I ask this because the fighting style States that you can reroll any damage done that you that you make when you make a melee attack with a two-handed weapon

Well lets do some math:
GWF adds 0.66_ to each d6 on a 2d6 weapon.
GWF would add 0.75 to each d8 on GFB or BB.
At max level it would add 0.66 + 0.66 + 0.75 + 0.75 + 0.75 + 0.75 = 4.32 average damage per round (since GFB and BB can only be used once per round).
So the answer is its not unbalanced at max level. So sure, go for it.

[Vogonjeltz]

Yeah, but the DM still doesn't have to follow them.

By that token, a DM doesn't have to follow any of the other rules that game provides either.

In this case, the question was, how does this rule function? And the answer is: It only works for the weapon dice.

If you want to modify that, good on you, it doesn't change the rules.