Paladin question: smiting and great weapon fighting fighting style

[Klorox]

Can you reroll 1's and 2's from the smiting damage?

[Arial Black]

RAW: yes, absolutely.

RAI: apparently this was unintended.

On balance it's better to allow it as written: all damage dice that are done by that attack roll are okay to be re-rolled if they come up 1 or 2. Otherwise, the GWF style is just rubbish compared to the other styles. It leads to a PC who has both GWF and Dueling styles to do more damage with a longsword in one hand than he would in two hands.

[Klorox]

RAW: yes, absolutely.

RAI: apparently this was unintended.

On balance it's better to allow it as written: all damage dice that are done by that attack roll are okay to be re-rolled if they come up 1 or 2. Otherwise, the GWF style is just rubbish compared to the other styles. It leads to a PC who has both GWF and Dueling styles to do more damage with a longsword in one hand than he would in two hands.

How can GWF be used on a one handed longsword?

[Cybren]

the comparison is 1d10 (reroll 1's and 2's) with 1d8+2

[Slipperychicken]

Can you reroll 1's and 2's from the smiting damage?

Sage Advice (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-answers-april-2016) says it's not supposed to do that.

[Specter]

No, you can't. BUT anything that says 'weapon damage' or 'weapon strike' is good to go, like someone casting Enlarge on you.

[TheOrcNextDoor]

No, you can't. BUT anything that says 'weapon damage' or 'weapon strike' is good to go, like someone casting Enlarge on you.

Not saying you are wrong RAI, but RAW you are. Its worded in the same way as a critical hit is. using the term damage die, instead of weapon damage die.

[Foxhound438]

as written, yes, but this same question has been asked here a thousand times and every time it's a split between RAW/"reward players" and RAI/"crawford is always right"

i'll bet 5 bucks it'll happen again. and once again, it's going to be two groups in their concrete shoes.

[TheOrcNextDoor]

as written, yes, but this same question has been asked here a thousand times and every time it's a split between RAW/"reward players" and RAI/"crawford is always right"

i'll bet 5 bucks it'll happen again. and once again, it's going to be two groups in their concrete shoes.

Quite possibly. However, if you look at the average damage buff of GWF vs dueling, GWF, at best, gives an average dps increase of +1. I've seen lots of math I honestly don't want to get into on it, but it came down to dueling actually giving a larger damage boost. That aside, I am fine with allowing it to work with divine smites as I'd rather not see a player role a double 1/2 for that damage haha.

[Zalabim]

RAW: yes, absolutely.

RAI: apparently this was unintended.

On balance it's better to allow it as written: all damage dice that are done by that attack roll are okay to be re-rolled if they come up 1 or 2. Otherwise, the GWF style is just rubbish compared to the other styles. It leads to a PC who has both GWF and Dueling styles to do more damage with a longsword in one hand than he would in two hands.

RAW was never perfectly clear (or I imagine people wouldn't ask this so much), so while I wouldn't say it's not RAW, it's not absolutely clear.

More arguably, on balance, it's better to follow RAI. Otherwise, the GWF style is far better for the paladin than it is for the fighter. Either option has no effect on the versatile weapons complaint, so I don't know why people keep mentioning it.


Quite possibly. However, if you look at the average damage buff of GWF vs dueling, GWF, at best, gives an average dps increase of +1. I've seen lots of math I honestly don't want to get into on it, but it came down to dueling actually giving a larger damage boost. That aside, I am fine with allowing it to work with divine smites as I'd rather not see a player role a double 1/2 for that damage haha.

Fun fact: Defense fighting style also gives a better defensive boost on SnB. Sword and shield just has better style. That's how it is.

[Sneak Dog]

Quite possibly. However, if you look at the average damage buff of GWF vs dueling, GWF, at best, gives an average dps increase of +1. I've seen lots of math I honestly don't want to get into on it, but it came down to dueling actually giving a larger damage boost. That aside, I am fine with allowing it to work with divine smites as I'd rather not see a player role a double 1/2 for that damage haha.

Rerolling 1's and 2's and taking second result for a 1d6 gives:
4/6 chance to deal on average 4.5 damage (rolling a 3~6 on the first roll)
2/6 chance to deal on average 3.5 damage (rerolling the 1~2 and taking second roll)
So combined you get a 0.67 damage increase due to your feature. Now take a 2d6, average 7 greatsword and you're getting 1.33 average damage from the rerolling for a total of 8.33.

Dueling gives a +2 to (probably) a 1d8, average 4.5 damage, making it an average 6.5.

This feature seems currently balanced to me assuming you're using a 2d6 weapon. If you aren't, it's lackluster.

[Lombra]

Personally I'd follow RAI, smiting is strong anyways. I just get a better feel for a martial feature to apply to the martial aspect of the character, not to the magical part of it.

[Christian]

How can GWF be used on a one handed longsword?
GWF style applies to versatile weapons wielded with two hands as well as to two-handed weapons.

[Vogonjeltz]

Can you reroll 1's and 2's from the smiting damage?

RAW: No, absolutely not. Smite isn't a weapons damage die, which are the only dice GWFS applies to. Smite is a rider applied separately from the attack.


RAW was never perfectly clear (or I imagine people wouldn't ask this so much), so while I wouldn't say it's not RAW, it's not absolutely clear.

Careful parsing of the two abilities reveals that Smite is in addition to the weapon attack, it's not part of it, per se. GWFS only applies to the damage from the weapon itself, not other add-ons.

Sage Advice merely confirms this, closing the door on any possible dispute.

[Arial Black]

RAW: No, absolutely not. Smite isn't a weapons damage die, which are the only dice GWFS applies to. Smite is a rider applied separately from the attack.

GWF does not say 'weapon' damage dice; it says the damage dice of the 'attack'.

Just like critical hits.


Careful parsing of the two abilities reveals that Smite is in addition to the weapon attack, it's not part of it, per se. GWFS only applies to the damage from the weapon itself, not other add-ons.

Again, if you crit with a Smite then those dice are rolled twice, and since the same wording applied to GWF then RAW those same dice are eligible for a re-roll if they come up 1-2.

[Quintessence]

RAW: No

RAI: Also no

[Foxhound438]

look, my prediction already came true.

[WhiteEagle88]

Common sense says no, too. The fighting style is called "Great Weapon Fighting" not "Great Weapon and Mystical Forces Granted By a Divinity or Ideology". It stands to reason that it only works on the great weapon's damage dice, as that is what the character has mastery over. He knows just how to work his weapon to optimize damage. Doesn't make sense that his training with his weapon would allow him to also be able to better manipulate cosmic energies just because they are being delivered by his weapon.

Though I guess that could just be me....

[Arial Black]

RAW: No

A paladin rolls a nat 20 and declares his attack to be a smite.

He is using a quarterstaff in two hands (1d8) and uses a 1st level slot for his smite (2d8); with his Str mod, the damage for that attack before the crit is 3d8+3.

But it's a crit, and he has GWF.

Since both the crit rules AND the GWF style rules say that the damage dice of the 'attack' are:-

* rolled twice (crit)
* can be re-rolled if they come up 1 or 2 (GWF)

...then any die that is rolled twice (because crit) must be eligible to be re-rolled if it comes up 1 or 2 (because GWF).

So the damage for this crit smite is 6d8+3, and any die that comes up 1 or 2 can be re-rolled.

This is what the PHB says.

If you think that this is not RAW, then quote the parts of the PHB that contradict it.

[Cybren]

The issue seems to be if the smite is part of the attack, or an effect you can trigger that deals its damage separately from the attack but dependent on it

[Wymmerdann]

look, my prediction already came true.

As one of those keyboard warriors I'll admit it's impossible to stay away.

The shakiness of the Sage Advice ruling on this was enough to turn me off that resource completely. They should bring someone in who has some experience and skill in interpreting text. A first year law student would be preferable to the current mess. I'm fine with hearing what the writers meant to do, but I'm not a fan of people confusing that with what they actually did.

If people have thematic concerns [martial is martial, and a feature available to a martial class can't apply to another character class in a different way] I guess I can respect that, even if I don't think it's that black and white.

I would allow it at the table based on both a plain an in-depth reading of the text, and consider a DM who didn't allow my own character access to it to be restrictive. Other DM's will make their own calls, as is their prerogative, and any suggestion that another authority has "closed the door" on interpreting this question is laughable.

Cheers.

Edit: Also, Good to see Fighting Ferret, Arial Black and Foxhound from last time we drew up our battle lines over this. Glad to know you're all still fighting the good fight, even if Foxhound continues to reference the impotence of it all while taking part :P .

[Arial Black]

The issue seems to be if the smite is part of the attack, or an effect you can trigger that deals its damage separately from the attack but dependent on it

What about a flaming sword?

A flaming longsword in two hands (with GWF) might do 1d10+3+1d6 fire. If a crit did not include the 1d6 fire damage, then that 1d6 would not be eligible for a re-roll either.

But that 1d6 fire damage is affected by the crit and rolled twice!

A paladin with this flaming sword could smite with it, doing 1d10+3+1d6+5d8, and the crit would be 2d10+3+2d6+10d8. Since the GWF wording is the same as the crit wording, then every single die of that damage is eligible for a re-roll if it comes up 1 or 2.

A Moonblade could do extra fire damage AND have the Finesse property, so a multi-class half-elven Pal 5/Rog 5 could use it to Sneak Attack AND Smite, doing 1d10+3+1d6(fire)+3d6(Sneak Attack)+3d8(Smite using 2nd level slot) for:-

1d10+3+4d6+3d8

If it crits:-

2d10+3+8d6+6d8

...according to the crit rules, which say that every die of damage done by that attack gets rolled twice. And since the wording of GWF is also every die of damage done by that 'attack' then the re-roll on 1 or 2 applies to each and every die.

The Savage Attacker feat does say 'weapon' damage die. But GWF, like the rule for crits, just says the dice of damage for that 'attack'.

[Cybren]

A flaming sword is pretty clearly the sword dealing the damage, it just so happens to be fire damage.

[Arial Black]

A flaming sword is pretty clearly the sword dealing the damage, it just so happens to be fire damage.

A Smite is pretty clearly the sword dealing the damage, it just so happens to be radiant damage.

[E’Tallitnics]

Can you reroll 1's and 2's from the smiting damage?

No. The GWFS text states, "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."

Nothing about that is plural. Thereby indicating that it's only for the weapon that caused the damage.

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

[Saeviomage]

A flaming sword is pretty clearly the sword dealing the damage, it just so happens to be fire damage.

Except the weapon style specifies "a damage die for an attack you make with a melee weapon that you are wielding with two hands" not "a damage die for a weapon that you are wielding with two hands", so the distinction is irrelevant.

[Saeviomage]

No. The GWFS text states, "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."

Nothing about that is plural. Thereby indicating that it's only for the weapon that caused the damage.

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

That interpretation would suggest that you could only reroll one of the dice from a two handed sword. Would you make your player decide which one was eligible up-front, or let them wait and see?

[E’Tallitnics]

That interpretation would suggest that you could only reroll one of the dice from a two handed sword. Would you make your player decide which one was eligible up-front, or let them wait and see?

If by two-handed sword you mean the great sword, which does 2d6 damage, then the answer is still the same if both d6 rolled a 1 or 2: pick one.

[Foxhound438]

If by two-handed sword you mean the great sword, which does 2d6 damage, then the answer is still the same if both d6 rolled a 1 or 2: pick one.

except it's not once per attack, as in if you roll a 1 134 times in one damage roll it procs for each of them.

[Wymmerdann]

No. The GWFS text states, "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."

Nothing about that is plural. Thereby indicating that it's only for the weapon that caused the damage.

That's a misreading.

The text simply frames the reroll as something that happens to individual die that make up the set of damage dice, not the set itself, so that when a roll of a 1 or 2 happens on a single die, not on the sum of multiple dice, the single die, rather than all dice in the rolled set [including higher results], are re-rolled. This can happen multiple times in the set of dice, but only once per die.

More to the point, your interpretation of the text still doesn't meaningfully distinguish between die from the smite and die from the weapon, so your niche readig should still allow one of the D8's from the smite to be rerolled rather that one of the D6's from the Greatsword.

Which should roughly succeed in infuriating both major bodies of opinion on this topic.

'Grats.

[Vulf]

RAW: yes, absolutely.

RAI: apparently this was unintended.

On balance it's better to allow it as written: all damage dice that are done by that attack roll are okay to be re-rolled if they come up 1 or 2. Otherwise, the GWF style is just rubbish compared to the other styles. It leads to a PC who has both GWF and Dueling styles to do more damage with a longsword in one hand than he would in two hands.

Treating the smite damage as the weapon's damage means it will be resisted when you hit a creature resistant to nonmagical weapons. RAW.

Smite, Divine Favor, Hunter's Mark are some of the few ways to get unresisted damage at low levels, but not if you consider them part of the weapon's dice.

If you are rerolling 1s and 2s on every single die you roll, it is a a significant damage increase over what the other fighting styles offer.

Each d4 adds 0.5
Each d6 adds 0.66
Each d8 adds 0.75

Great Weapon style averages out to a +1.33 average damage when using a greatsword. And greatswords already average +2.5 over a longsword.

Average Dueling 6.5, on a crit 11
GWF greatsword 8.33, on a crit 16.66

The average damage a level 11 Oath of Vengeance Paladin does with a single attack using a 1st level Divine Smite, Hunter's Mark, and Improved Divine Smite is:

24 + modifier + 10 if using GWM

with GWF RAI:

25.33 + modifier + 10 ""

with GWF RAW~:

28.25 + modifier + 10 ""


Meanwhile, the duelist +2 damage is dealing:

21.5 + modifier +2


Great Weapon Master feat to add +10 damage only works with heavy weapons. Longswords, dueling or otherwise can not catch up.
Rules as intended it absolutely fine and balanced.

PS. On a crit, that RAW GWF would do:
56.5 + modifier + 10 if using GWM

compared to the duelist's:
43 + modifier + 2

A difference of 21.5 damage.

[Foxhound438]

Treating the smite damage as the weapon's damage means it will be resisted when you hit a creature resistant to nonmagical weapons. RAW.

Smite, Divine Favor, Hunter's Mark are some of the few ways to get unresisted damage at low levels, but not if you consider them part of the weapon's dice.

If you are rerolling 1s and 2s on every single die you roll, it is a HUGE damage increase over what the other fighting styles offer, outclassing the average damage they provide by double digits.

Someone else can do the math, but it is way too strong.

Great Weapon style averages out to a +1.33 average damage when using a greatsword. And greatswords already average +1.5 over a longsword.

So even if Dueling offers a better increase while using longswords than the comparitive increase GWF gives when using greatswords, it still does not catch up to GWF damage with a greatsword.

And the Great Weapon Master feat to add +10 damage only works with heavy weapons. Longswords are FAR outclassed by GWM + GWF + Greatsword.

Rules as intended it absolutely fine and balanced.

1) it's not treated as the weapon's damage, it's part of the attack's damage... which is the same set affected by GWFS

2) swinging a weapon in 2 hands should do more damage, but more to the point the boost isn't that huge. even on 5d8 it's a boost of only 3.75 damage on average. not at all double digits.

3) a longsword and shield will do less total damage but the increase in AC from a shield far outmatches the 1.83 damage per hit that the greatsword gets, even before you factor in the existence of +x shields

4) GWM is on its own unbalancing compared to SnB in the damage category, fighting style and stipulations on what it applies to aside. That last bit is not at all an argument against GWFS applying to smite, it's an argument for a retooling of the power attack features. And if you want to get into external topics like feat balance, I will tell you now that sharpshooter is far more unbalancing than GWM, since sharpshooter both ignores cover and allows attacks at long range without disadvantage. 600 feet out with a d8+15 4 times at will is a lot stronger than 2d6+15 at only 5 feet.

[Wymmerdann]

Vulf

Comparing such variant builds is really neither here nor there.

Your presumption that duelling should be closing the gap between long swords and greatswords seems pretty wrongheaded, as Foxhound has indicated, since it overlooks the importance of shields [particularly magical shields].

If anything, the fact that long swords are balanced to be doing less damage than great swords should lead us to consider duelling to be better balanced against GWF by providing a smaller damage boost [proportional to the long sword's lesser damage in comparison to the greatsword].

Once we start talking about GWM, there are far too many variables at play for it to remain pertinent or useful for the original question's purpose. The GWM feat has a raft of balance issues that simply aren't directly relevant to the topic, and will serve to confuse, rather than clarify, that topic.

[Vulf]

I was still working my math, it's only a double digit increase on a crit with sufficient additional effects.

And feats are part of the game. They may be optional, but I've yet to be at a table that banned them. But if feats were going to be banned, that just means the munchkins will be rolling full casters. The damage of a GWM fighter does not compare in the slightest to what a Tempest Cleric can put out when combats only last 2-3 rounds.

The argument for or against RAW GWF can be as simple as whether or not your group uses the Sage Advice rulings.

If it so far outclasses all the other fighting styles in your games, do not be surprised if it is what every multiclass Pact Blade Warlock/Paladin takes.

Really the best option might be using a heavy weapon with Defense.
You are only 5% more likely to be hit than someone using dueling and a shield, you do about the same amount of damage as a dueling longsword, whether using a polearm or greatsword, and you can use GWM and Poelarm Master.

[Wymmerdann]

My point wasn't that feats aren't a part of the game [they generally are], or that they are completely irrelevant to determining how powerful GWF is [they are not], but rather that considering them adds too many variables to too tangentially relevant a point [the strength of the feature in light of each interpretation] to be worth much consideration in this topic.

If we come out of the other end of the thought bubble with the conclusion that GWF and GWM enjoy a powerful synergy with Smite, where does that leave us on the original point? Nowhere. Both enjoy a powerful synergy with the Champion's expanded crit range too, but that hasn't lead to people saying that GWM should not be activated when a Champion crits on an 18 or 19.

Similarly, the huge to-hit penalty from GWM's power attack [which you have't given much attention to, but could easily lead to the GWF doing no damage at all, and missing the opportunity to apply any smite at all] synergises well with the Battle Master's Precise Attack, and yet people aren't coming out of the woodwork to complain that a feature available to both divine and martial classes [being GWF] is enjoying a powerful synergy with specific features of those classes. Fighters also have greater access to feats, and more opportunities to combine them with their class features, which is generally overlooked in cross-class analysis.

A fighter in my RL party played as protection, and kept the rest of us alive in such a way that far outclassed what he could have hoped to accomplish with either Dualist, or GWF, because the rest of the party were geared toward DPR. Optimisation tends to forget the necessary context of a party format, which could make any particular specialisation more or less useful than another.

[Zalabim]

GWF style isn't competing with Dueling FS, anyway. They are each competing with Defense FS (and Dueling also competes with Protection). Since +1 AC is relatively more valuable the higher your AC is to begin with, Dueling FS has to be add relatively more damage than GWF style in order to be balanced with its competition. Just simple algebra, really.


GWF does not say 'weapon' damage dice; it says the damage dice of the 'attack'.

Just like critical hits.

Again, if you crit with a Smite then those dice are rolled twice, and since the same wording applied to GWF then RAW those same dice are eligible for a re-roll if they come up 1-2.


Since both the crit rules AND the GWF style rules say that the damage dice of the 'attack' are:-

* rolled twice (crit)
* can be re-rolled if they come up 1 or 2 (GWF)

...then any die that is rolled twice (because crit) must be eligible to be re-rolled if it comes up 1 or 2 (because GWF).

This is what the PHB says.

If you think that this is not RAW, then quote the parts of the PHB that contradict it.

We know critical hits double the damage dice of things like sneak attack and smite because the critical hit rules include a line that says so. In my case:

"If the attack involves other damage dice, such as from the rogue's Sneak Attack feature, you roll those dice twice as well."

It isn't phrased like a reminder. GWF style doesn't say that. So GWF doesn't do that. So RAI is believable even if it isn't obvious.

[Feuerphoenix]

GWF style isn't competing with Dueling FS, anyway. They are each competing with Defense FS (and Dueling also competes with Protection). Since +1 AC is relatively more valuable the higher your AC is to begin with, Dueling FS has to be add relatively more damage than GWF style in order to be balanced with its competition. Just simple algebra, really.

Of course it has to compete with Dueling. The whole point of taking a 2-handed weapon is actually dealing more damage (surprise!). So when it is about dealing more damage, and there is a comparable FS, that grants you a relatively higher damage with a lower chance of being hit in addition, you have to ask yourself, why you should take such a big disadvantage. Without allowing to reroll other dice, there is no point, to even CONSIDER going with big weapons. You will deal about the same amount of damage in the long run, but you will have 10-25% less hits! Where is the point going GWF at all?

[Wymmerdann]

I think Zalabim's point might be that the two don't directly compete with each other, whereas you, Feuer, are also right to point out that they do indirectly compete with each other.

What I mean by this is that no character, with all other choices locked in, will be choosing between these two features, because they're components of incompatible builds, but those builds are, in their entirety, comparable in the way you suggest.

So everyone's a winner! Huzzah.

[Arial Black]

Treating the smite damage as the weapon's damage means it will be resisted when you hit a creature resistant to nonmagical weapons. RAW.

The other points you raised have since been thoroughly de-bunked by later posters, but I didn't see the answer to this one.

Weapons (usually) do piercing, bludgeoning or slashing damage. There are some creatures who are resistant to such damage from weapons unless it was dealt by a magical weapon.

However, a weapon attack can do other types of damage as part of that weapon attack.

Hunter's mark does an extra 1d6 of the type of damage the weapon does anyway, but the similar spell hex does an extra 1d6 necrotic damage.

The extra 1d6 damage dealt by a flaming sword is fire damage, even though the weapon damage remains B/P/S.

The extra d8s from Smite are radiant damage, even though the weapon damage remains B/P/S.

Creatures resistant to one or more of these damage types do so separately. If your Pal 2/War 3 hits a vampire spawn with a greatsword using hex and smiting, then the slashing damage and the necrotic damage will be halved because they are resistant to those types, but the radiant damage will be in full effect.

Again, there is no wording in the GWF style that limits the re-rolls to the die or dice provided by the weapon itself.

[Arial Black]

We know critical hits double the damage dice of things like sneak attack and smite because the critical hit rules include a line that says so. In my case:

"If the attack involves other damage dice, such as from the rogue's Sneak Attack feature, you roll those dice twice as well."

It isn't phrased like a reminder. GWF style doesn't say that. So GWF doesn't do that. So RAI is believable even if it isn't obvious.

Actually, it is simply pointing out what would be true anyway. It is an explanatory note; it does change the rule, it merely explains it.

The wording of the rule itself is the same as the wording for GWF.

[Feuerphoenix]

I think Zalabim's point might be that the two don't directly compete with each other, whereas you, Feuer, are also right to point out that they do indirectly compete with each other.

What I mean by this is that no character, with all other choices locked in, will be choosing between these two features, because they're components of incompatible builds, but those builds are, in their entirety, comparable in the way you suggest.

So everyone's a winner! Huzzah.

Sure, but keeping in mind, that he is comparing them to Defense FS makes it kinda pointless, as this comparison is even more abstract. But of course you have a point there, that these styles cancel each other out in their purpose.

[Gastronomie]

I have a good idea!

ASK YOUR DM.

[/threadsolved]
[/threadsolved]
[/threadsolved]

[/whyareyoustillscrollingdown]

[/threadsolved]

[Vogonjeltz]

GWF does not say 'weapon' damage dice; it says the damage dice of the 'attack'.

Just like critical hits.

Again, if you crit with a Smite then those dice are rolled twice, and since the same wording applied to GWF then RAW those same dice are eligible for a re-roll if they come up 1-2.

No, critical hits sayS: "If the attack involves other damage dice, such as from the rogue's Sneak Attack feature, you roll those dice twice as well."

That's in ADDITION to the text about the attack. Sneak Attack dice aren't the attack's dice, even though they trigger on a successful attack the same way Smite does.

Attacks are just the weapons themselves anything added after that is a rider, and the language is not identical between GWFS and Critical Hit, it's quite different. GWFS is not inclusive of things that are riders the way Critical hits explicitly are.

[Rysto]

"Such as" does not mean "in addition to". "Such as" means that what follows is an example.

[Gastronomie]

Why are people still posting here? Do they really think they need to force their opinions on absolutely every single DM in the world? Are they serious?

The DM has the final say. And only the DM has the right to say. Even if a particular side won in the argument in this thread (which I doubt will actually ever happen, since they're now arguing to prove they're right, not to try and see which is the better solution from an objective view), it's utterly pointless as it's still the right of each and every DM in the world to simply rule as they wish, ignoring anything other people say.

I mean, DMs have the right to ignore what's officially printed in the rules. Why should they ever be forced to obey what these random people randomly say in this random thread?

Unless, like, the purpose of this thread is to amuse us as popcorn fodder.

[Pex]

I have a good idea!

ASK YOUR DM.

[/threadsolved]
[/threadsolved]
[/threadsolved]

[/whyareyoustillscrollingdown]

[/threadsolved]

So at one table my paladin gets to reroll 1s and 2s on smites but at another table I can't because the DM rules differently. In other words, I have to relearn the game for the audacity of playing with a different DM, continuing one of my major complaints about 5E.

This answer solves nothing.

[Fighting_Ferret]

If you are looking for an official ruling, you have it in sage advice... sage advise coming from Crawford is an official ruling. Official rulings are there to clear up ambiguity of unclear rules.

Now that official ruling is just there to create a stable basis between tables in adventure league. If you aren't playing adventure league, then although rules are still important, you have a resource that can rule as they see fit, the DM

If you have a problem with that sage advise (I think the idea of ruling to limit re-rolls to save time is a bit absurd), then it becomes a DM question. It in no way invalidates your paladin with GWF, it just takes away a bit of damage from a still great feature. If it causes a play-ability issue, your DM might let you select a different fighting style, or they might allow your interpretation, seeing the bonus damage as no big deal.

5e has several problems with how they word certain abilities... and everyone interprets them differently. In this case there is an official ruling, but unless you are playing AL games, there is no sacred cows here... only differing opinions.

Have fun and play responsibly.

[JNAProductions]

So at one table my paladin gets to reroll 1s and 2s on smites but at another table I can't because the DM rules differently. In other words, I have to relearn the game for the audacity of playing with a different DM, continuing one of my major complaints about 5E.

This answer solves nothing.

That's not relearning the game, that's modifying a build. With one DM, GWF is worth it on a Paladin. With the other, it isn't-simple fix is go Dueling (if you don't mind switching from two-handed to sword and board) or (if you want to stick two handed) go Defense for a little extra AC.

It's a change, yes, but it's not relearning the game. Hyperbole isn't needed.

[AvatarVecna]

The difference between one DM saying one particular rules interaction works one way and another DM saying it works another way is the same as the difference between completely different game systems. This problem is unique to 5e, because everybody everywhere who runs other game systems have the common courtesy to only play that game exactly the same way everybody else plays that game.

*blows raspberry*

[Mr.Moron]

So at one table my paladin gets to reroll 1s and 2s on smites but at another table I can't because the DM rules differently. In other words, I have to relearn the game for the audacity of playing with a different DM, continuing one of my major complaints about 5E.

This answer solves nothing.

If you'd like to to play a strictly regulated game with well-documented resolutions for every interaction and sanctioned events that carefully monitor and enforce these rules there are many, many, many products out there for you to play.

It's a serious waste of energy to get all stressed over having a square peg, going to a round hole and taking issue that the peg is not fitting when you're literally surrounded by other holes that are nice and square.

If you just want games in general things like Magic: The Gathering might be a good fit. If you want your tactical miniatures fix you can look into stuff like Infinity. If you want RPGs Pathfinder organized play is an option. If you just want the codified rules but don't care about official enforcement (though that's really the only way you'll be rid of variance from table to table) Iron Kingdoms is written with the tight, technical language of Wargame.


Seriously it's like you've walked into "Herb's Vegetarian Pizza shop" , looking for pepperoni pizza when you've got a 5 other pizza shops and a place that sells burgers with pepperoni on them in walking distance.

[Pex]

I know. How outrageous of me wanting to know the rules of a game I want to play regardless of with whom I play it.

It's nice there's an official ruling regardless of whether I like the outcome or not. It would have been nice if it was clear in the first place, but it's something. Now I know that rerolling on smites is a house rule, but the point stands. I shouldn't have to ask the DM how he's going to rule on every minutiae of stuff that encompasses 5E. House rules are a couple of sentences, a handout page the DM gives. It shouldn't be its own rulebook.

"Ask your DM" is not a proper response to every single rules clarification. It's a signal that 5E is poorly written and reeks of being The Oberoni Fallacy Edition. That a DM has to make rulings for "everything" is the problem but obviously not for everyone. Some people find that a great feature to be shouted from the roof tops. I just have to lump it and hope a hypothetical 6E will have more defined specific rules for things 5E purposely and sometimes accidentally left vague or non-existent.

Now, on topic.

As it is in the game I play my paladin has been rerolling smites, and the DM has no problem with it. He likes that my character can dish out the damage, a core feature of the party's combat prowess. I get my moments to shine, but I do not monopolize combats. Others PCs get their own moments of being MVP of the combat as it should be. The smite rerolls are not breaking the game. The Eldritch Knight and Battle Master do their own things and don't resent my smite rerolls. They encourage me along.

[Gastronomie]

So at one table my paladin gets to reroll 1s and 2s on smites but at another table I can't because the DM rules differently. In other words, I have to relearn the game for the audacity of playing with a different DM, continuing one of my major complaints about 5E.

This answer solves nothing.As if, if this thread came to a particular conclusion, everybody in the world will actually listen.

Given that's not the case, this thread will never solve anything.

Asking your DM about rulings before submitting your character sheet is part of table-talk manners. How much they're generous about spells like Minor Illusion and Suggestion, whether they'd allow you to use a particular Unearthed Arcana, whether you can use a homebrew version of Four Element Monk. Asking how he's gonna rule Great Weapon Fighting beforehand is hardly a problem, and if you're whining about such a thing, like others said, go play a computer game or something in which no one ever needs to complain about rulings. By the time you're playing table-talk, you need to acknowledge the fact that every DM has different rulings.

And like, even if Great Weapon Fighting specifically stated in the original text that it only re-rolls the weapon's original damage, some DMs will still allow you to re-roll Smite rolls just to balance it out with the other fighting styles. That should be a central part of table-talk games: the DM ignoring rules and balancing stuff out for the sake of fun.

[Mr.Moron]

I know. How outrageous of me wanting to know the rules of a game I want to play regardless of with whom I play it.

Yes, yes it is when flexibility and open-to-interpretation "rulings not rules" approach is part of the core design philosophy of the game. It's a selling point. It's what the game is meant to do.

A pizza is not poorly made because it does not have pepperoni on it but boy howdy you just love pepperoni.
5e is not poorly written just because it opts for a style that doesn't adhere to technical rigor.

It's fine to want a pepperoni pizza but it's just head-scratching to go up the the Vegetarian Pizza shop that plainly is a vegetarian pizza shop and sit there eating your kale-and-pineapple pine all the while bemoaning:

"Why couldn't they just give me a Meat Lovers? It sure does suck that this pizza doesn't have any pepperoni. The last pizza shop herb opened had meat. I know I came here and ordered this, and that you told me you were going to make a kale-and-pineapple but you really should have given me meat lovers. I know there are other pizza shops that have meat but saying it I could go there is a fallacy. I'm at this pizza shop and I want meat here. It's flaw this pizza wasn't made with meat."

Dude. We get it. You don't rulings. You don't like DMs making stuff up on the fly. You don't like that loose definitions that can change table to table. Fair enough. That's a totally valid preference. A lot of people share your preferences. However man this a rulings-and-making-stuff-up-on-the-fly-change-it-as-you-see-fit game. Feature, not a bug. The game isn't broken. You just don't like what the game is.

[AvatarVecna]

I know. How outrageous of me wanting to know the rules of a game I want to play regardless of with whom I play it.

It's nice there's an official ruling regardless of whether I like the outcome or not. It would have been nice if it was clear in the first place, but it's something. Now I know that rerolling on smites is a house rule, but the point stands. I shouldn't have to ask the DM how he's going to rule on every minutiae of stuff that encompasses 5E. House rules are a couple of sentences, a handout page the DM gives. It shouldn't be its own rulebook.

"Ask your DM" is not a proper response to every single rules clarification. It's a signal that 5E is poorly written and reeks of being The Oberoni Fallacy Edition. That a DM has to make rulings for "everything" is the problem but obviously not for everyone. Some people find that a great feature to be shouted from the roof tops. I just have to lump it and hope a hypothetical 6E will have more defined specific rules for things 5E purposely and sometimes accidentally left vague or non-existent.

Now, on topic.

As it is in the game I play my paladin has been rerolling smites, and the DM has no problem with it. He likes that my character can dish out the damage, a core feature of the party's combat prowess. I get my moments to shine, but I do not monopolize combats. Others PCs get their own moments of being MVP of the combat as it should be. The smite rerolls are not breaking the game. The Eldritch Knight and Battle Master do their own things and don't resent my smite rerolls. They encourage me along.

Even if we ignore how laughable the idea is that everybody plays the game the same way, the rule is spelled out crystal clear: if you have the fighting style, and you're wielding a two-handed or versatile weapon in two hands, and you roll a damage die, and it comes up a 1 or 2, you reroll it and are stuck with the new roll. It's not even as vague as the Savage Attacker feat, which says you can reroll "the weapon's damage dice"; somebody interpreting that feat could say that it's supposed to apply to any dice being rolled, while somebody else could say it's supposed to only reroll the damage dice inherent to the weapon...but that's completely beside the point here. This ability is clear cut: it applies to damage dice, with no qualifiers about what kind of damage dice, so it applies to them all. Now, whether you feel it should be the case is a different debate, but your feelings on should or shouldn't are irrelevant to what is. If you feel that designer intent is more important than the words written in the book, feel free to change it. But don't blame the wording of the ability when the problem is your unwillingness to read the rule.

But hey, there's other things in 5e that are unclear! The whole stealth system is a mess of "ask your DM", what about that? I'm going to let you in on a little secret, but you have to promise not to share it with anybody. You ready?

Wizards of the Coast isn't perfectly precognitive.

I realize this must be a huge shock to your system--surely they wouldnt make a game system if they couldn't perfectly predict and prepare for every possible situation that could come up in a real game--but I swear to you that it's true. The stealth system, among other things, is left vague and up to the DM because WotC isn't perfect; 3.5 and 4e taught them that they can't really prepare for every possible eventuality, and that people will inevitably come up with something they didn't think of to break the game. The ability to go undetected is one of those abusable abilities that they wish to keep controlled, but aren't really sure how to keep controlled in a strict-rules system, but they came up with a stupidly genius move: make it somebody else's problem...specifically, whoever is running the game and is actually at the table. There's a lot of situations that can come up in the game in regards to perception and stealth; line of sight can be debatable, or cover of darkness; different methods of detecting people are available, and distance can be a significant factor. Rather than making a mountain of strict interlocking rules, they decided to let the people who are sitting at the table, and can take in all the possible variables for their specific situation, decide how to rule it. Stealth can be simplified from 4 skills to 2; a single opposed check is sufficient to determine success; an entire sub-system dedicated to calculating the balance of bonuses and penalties has been replaced with the ever-so-simple "advantage/disadvantage" system.

But hey, you know, maybe you like having everything spelled out for you, like working within the system to grind out some approximation of what you're going for. Maybe you don't like hand-waving things, or DMs getting to ignore the rules in favor of what makes sense to them personally. Maybe you prefer the comfort of knowing that, sensible or no, the rules as they've been presented to you will be followed to the letter come hell or high water. And that's perfectly fine!

Play 3.5e, or Pathfinder. Hell, I don't say this often, but play 4e.

Don't get me wrong, I love 3.5! It's a wild, chaotic mess of rules interactions that only make sense about half the time. The entire concept of game balance was thrown out the window about halfway through the Player's Handbook, and all that's done is allow people to play anything from Burrows And Burrows to Demigods And Demon Lords. The system is complex enough that you could make anything! Hell, I'm about to run a game where people built freaking superheroes, despite 3.5 arguably being a terrible system for building superheroes. Hell, I don't like 4e (I thought it was a boring slog of a game that attempted to make everybody super, and therefore nobody was), but it was solidly designed, it was well-balanced, there was quite a variety of options, and the rules interactions were well-defined. If that's what does it for you, by all means play it!

When you're invited to play a game of CalvinBall, you can complain until you're hoarse that it's inconsistent, but by doing so, you're completely missing the reason why people play it. If this game isn't fun for you...well, nobody's holding your hand to the fire and forcing you to play this game instead of another.

[Vogonjeltz]

Why are people still posting here? Do they really think they need to force their opinions on absolutely every single DM in the world? Are they serious?

The DM has the final say. And only the DM has the right to say. Even if a particular side won in the argument in this thread (which I doubt will actually ever happen, since they're now arguing to prove they're right, not to try and see which is the better solution from an objective view), it's utterly pointless as it's still the right of each and every DM in the world to simply rule as they wish, ignoring anything other people say.

I mean, DMs have the right to ignore what's officially printed in the rules. Why should they ever be forced to obey what these random people randomly say in this random thread?

Unless, like, the purpose of this thread is to amuse us as popcorn fodder.

Klorox's question was about what the rule is. DM preference is irrelevent to the question.

[Wymmerdann]

People who want to to switch off their thinking caps [or direct their attention elsewhere] and rely on DM ruling can do that.

Those of us who DM, and who value system mastery, obviously aren't going to do that. Telling us that DM's make the decision is frankly worse than useless to us, since our question [and the original one in this thread] isn't who makes the decision, but what the best answer to the question actually is.

At the same time, I appreciate that this argument in particular can be quite frustrating, as people tend to pick sides and snipe at each other.

[AvatarVecna]

People who want to to switch off their thinking caps [or direct their attention elsewhere] and rely on DM ruling can do that.

Those of us who DM, and who value system mastery, obviously aren't going to do that. Telling us that DM's make the decision is frankly worse than useless to us, since our question [and the original one in this thread] isn't who makes the decision, but what the best answer to the question actually is.

At the same time, I appreciate that this argument in particular can be quite frustrating, as people tend to pick sides and snipe at each other.

And for people who want the RAW answer the question posed in post #1, it was answered quite well by post #2. Rules As Written is "when you roll a damage die", and doesn't limit that to anything, so any damage die triggers it; Rules As Intended (as proven by the Sage Advice) is that it's only supposed to apply to the base weapon damage.

[Arial Black]

As if, if this thread came to a particular conclusion, everybody in the world will actually listen.

Given that's not the case, this thread will never solve anything.

Asking your DM about rulings before submitting your character sheet is part of table-talk manners. How much they're generous about spells like Minor Illusion and Suggestion, whether they'd allow you to use a particular Unearthed Arcana, whether you can use a homebrew version of Four Element Monk. Asking how he's gonna rule Great Weapon Fighting beforehand is hardly a problem, and if you're whining about such a thing, like others said, go play a computer game or something in which no one ever needs to complain about rulings. By the time you're playing table-talk, you need to acknowledge the fact that every DM has different rulings.

And like, even if Great Weapon Fighting specifically stated in the original text that it only re-rolls the weapon's original damage, some DMs will still allow you to re-roll Smite rolls just to balance it out with the other fighting styles. That should be a central part of table-talk games: the DM ignoring rules and balancing stuff out for the sake of fun.

What are you on this forum for?

Why are you posting in this thread?

Why does anyone bother to ask a rules question, if all that's going to happen is you turning up and saying "Ask your DM!"

Why doesn't this site have an automated response to every single rules question that's posted on this site which reads, "Ask your DM!"

[JNAProductions]

What are you on this forum for?

Why are you posting in this thread?

Why does anyone bother to ask a rules question, if all that's going to happen is you turning up and saying "Ask your DM!"

Why doesn't this site have an automated response to every single rules question that's posted on this site which reads, "Ask your DM!"

Good question, on number 4. Because a lot of times, it's the best answer. Shockingly enough, different DMs play differently, in any game, so the person with the most impact (if you're asking as a player) is your DM.

Now, if you're asking as a DM, that answer is useless. It's better to say something like "I rule it this way, because of reason X Y and Z".

[Gastronomie]

Why does anyone bother to ask a rules question, if all that's going to happen is you turning up and saying "Ask your DM!"

Why doesn't this site have an automated response to every single rules question that's posted on this site which reads, "Ask your DM!"Well actually, yes exactly, I don't get why people ever bother to ask rules questions here, because, as a matter of fact, the only person who can answer that question for you is the DM of your game.

[Arial Black]

Well actually, yes exactly, I don't get why people ever bother to ask rules questions here, because, as a matter of fact, the only person who can answer that question for you is the DM of your game.

You don't have to 'get' the motives of others that makes them want to ask a rules question, but it should be obvious that "Don't bother asking!" is not a useful or welcome response.

[Saeviomage]

Well actually, yes exactly, I don't get why people ever bother to ask rules questions here, because, as a matter of fact, the only person who can answer that question for you is the DM of your game.

Great, your job here is done, you can leave the forum entirely.



Wizards of the Coast isn't perfectly precognitive.


I think the real problem is "Wizards of the coast are only vaguely capable of writing coherent rules".

[AvatarVecna]

What are you on this forum for?

Why are you posting in this thread?

Why does anyone bother to ask a rules question, if all that's going to happen is you turning up and saying "Ask your DM!"

Why doesn't this site have an automated response to every single rules question that's posted on this site which reads, "Ask your DM!"

Maybe I'm going crazy, but I think somebody tried to start a thread awhile back which was basically "Asking your DM is an option, we know, so you don't have to tell us anymore". As I recall, the thread was shut down as an example of vigilante modding (telling people what they could and could not post).

[Lollerabe]

Asking for rule clarifications on the forum isn't a waste of time at all in my opinion. I recently made a thread regarding GWM doing just that, and that's because I have a dm who wants to rule in accordance to raw (when he dosent consider raw downright dumb).
He also realizes he might be wrong a lot of the times, so when that's the case he'll tell the player 'well if you can find evidence supporting your way of interpreting the rule, show it to me and we'll take it from there'

After I made the GWM thread and most people agreed with my position on the wording, I showed it to my dm and he admitted he was wrong and changed his ruling in accordance.

Not all DMs are power hungry egomaniacs, some responds to reason and solid arguments, something this forum can help with. Asking for help regarding RAW/RAI makes perfect sense, and 'ask your dm' isn't always a helpful answer, since the dm might not know the answer. The DM might even welcome that a player looked up the rule themselves and presented it to them.

[Klorox]

If by two-handed sword you mean the great sword, which does 2d6 damage, then the answer is still the same if both d6 rolled a 1 or 2: pick one.

This ruling makes what is already one of the weaker fighting styles even worst.

[Klorox]

I have a good idea!

ASK YOUR DM.

[/threadsolved]
[/threadsolved]
[/threadsolved]

[/whyareyoustillscrollingdown]

[/threadsolved]

I posted the thread because I wasn't sure if there was an official rule.

But thanks for the input.