RAW: great weapon fighting fighting style: does it apply to smiting?

[krunchyfrogg]

I've seen arguments on both sides.

If I show up at an AL table with a paladin and I choose this fighting style, am I rerolling 1's and 2's on my smites, yes or no?

[nickl_2000]

I've seen arguments on both sides.

If I show up at an AL table with a paladin and I choose this fighting style, am I rerolling 1's and 2's on my smites, yes or no?

Yes, kind of, yes... The GWF style makes you re-roll on a 1 or a 2. A smite is declared after you hit with a melee attack. So, you roll, GWF takes effect and you can re-roll. On your re-roll if you hit, then you can declare a use of Smite.

[krunchyfrogg]

Yes, kind of, yes... The GWF style makes you re-roll on a 1 or a 2. A smite is declared after you hit with a melee attack. So, you roll, GWF takes effect and you can re-roll. On your re-roll if you hit, then you can declare a use of Smite.

I am not sure if I was clear.

Lets say my smite deals 3d8 extra damage.

Can I reroll 1's and 2's on those 3d8? Or can I only re-roll the 1's and 2's on the 2d6 of my greatsword?

[nickl_2000]

I am not sure if I was clear.

Lets say my smite deals 3d8 extra damage.

Can I reroll 1's and 2's on those 3d8? Or can I only re-roll the 1's and 2's on the 2d6 of my greatsword?

Nah, you were clear. I didn't read GWF carefully enough, Sorry. would rule that it would not apply during the rare days that I am DMing a (non AL) table. That being said, I messed up the attack roll verses damage roll on GWF... So, I'm not exactly an expert.

My Reasoning:
GWF - When you roll a 1 or 2 on a damage die for an attack you make with a melee weapon
Smite - when you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack, you can expend one paladin spell slot to deal radiant damage to the target, in addition to the weapon’s damage

The damage type is different and you are using a different resource to get that added on damage. It's a rider on the melee attack that's an divine effect.

[Clone]

RAW you are allowed do that, yes.
I believe Sage Advice ruled that smiting does not gain the benefit of GWF, but I give my Paladin player the ability to use it with both. Considering you're giving up more AC for more damage, I think people should get more bang for their buck.

[rbstr]

RAW some people try to apply "damage die for an attack you make with a melee weapon that you are wielding with two hands" to the smite as well.
That's a stretch, at best. The smite isn't the damage die for the attack with the weapon, it's something extra.
It's greedy between-the-lines reading. (I've never heard someone ask if Maneuvers get to be rerolled, or hex/hunters' mark.)

The text for Critical Hits makes this more clear, I think, since it explicitly differentiates between the attack itself's damage die and "other damage die" from things like sneak attack, noting that you get to double both.

[Biggstick]

I think the Errata ends up saying no to re-rolling Smite/Sneak Attack/etc. dice. It cites as it's reason time taken up at the table though. The way I look at it, if you're fine (and all your Players are fine with it) with a little bit more time being taken on the table for a Player to go through and check the dice for 1-2's and re-rolling them, go for it.

Because honestly, as a DM you're given a slider for the monster's HP bar as it is. Let Players do more damage with their critical Divine Smites! They want to do tons of damage! You as the DM can simply up the creature's HP on the fly by 10-100 HP (depending on the level you're at in the game) and still let the Player roll all that damage and feel awesome about themselves.

[Arial Black]

Roll all of the attack’s damage dice twice and add them together. Then add any relevant modifiers as normal.

That is the actual rule part. The rest are simply explanatory notes, not separate rules.


To speed up play, you can roll all the damage dice at once. For example, if you score a critical hit with a dagger, roll 2d4 for the damage, rather than 1d4, and then add your relevant ability modifier.

That part is just advice, not a rule.


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

That is not a separate rule, just an explanation of how the actual rule applies when extra dice beyond the damage dice of the weapon are involved.

The upshot is that when it says, "Roll all of the attack’s damage dice twice and add them together", then "the attack's damage dice" refers to every dice of damage delivered by that attack, whether from the weapon itself or any other source.

Contrast this to Savage Attacker, which says, "Once per turn when you roll damage for a melee weapon attack, you can reroll the weapon’s damage dice and use either total", so extra damage dice from other sources are not re-rolled.

So to resolve the question about Smite damage we check the wording of GWF to see if it resembles the way critical hits is worded (applies to all dice delivered by that attack roll) or if it resembles the wording of Savage Attacker (only applies to the damage dice of the weapon itself; the weapon's 'damage code', if you will).


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...

Compare "damage die for an attack you make" with both "attack's damage dice" from the wording of critical hits and "weapon's damage dice" from the wording of Savage Attacker.

GWF is worded like critical hits. It is not limited to the 'weapon's damage dice' like Savage Attacker, it applies to ALL of the 'attack's damage dice', every 'damage die for an attack you make'.

We already know that if you score a crit and use Smite on it, your smite damage dice are doubled. It should come as no surprise that each die from Smite damage (and any other extra damage dice) are eligible for a re-roll via GWF, and for exactly the same reason: they are ALL part of the 'attack's damage dice', every single die is a 'damage die for an attack you make'.

So, RAW, yes GWF applies to Smite dice and every other extra damage die delivered directly by that attack roll.

It turns out that this was not intended! Turns out they intended to limit it to the 'weapon's damage dice' like Savage Attacker. But it has not been errata'd, and AL must use RAW.

In your home games you must decide to use RAW or RAI. I recommend RAW here, simply because without the re-roll applying to all of the attack's damage dice then GWF is a rubbish style compared to the others!

Take the basic longsword. Conceptually, it can be used in one or two hands, but it does more damage if you use it in two hands: 1d10 instead of 1d8.

If the wielder has both the fighting style intended for 1H use (Dueling) AND 2H use (GWF) then there is no reason that the expectation that you do more damage 2-handed than 1-handed should change.

Is that the case in practice? With Dueling, the sword does 1d8+2 for an average of 6.5. With GWF it does 1d10 re-roll 1 or 2 (but if you roll 1 or 2 on the re-roll you are stuck with it) which gives an average of 6.3.

So although the wielder is equally skilled in both 1H and 2H styles, the sword that is intended to do more damage 2H now does more damage 1H!

What's the best way to put this right? Houserules? Not in AL.

The answer is simply to use the RAW and allow GWF to apply to any die of damage delivered by that attack roll. It gives that fighting style a badly needed niche.

You know it makes sense! It's both RAW and better for game balance.

[RipTide]

I'm fairly certain that sage advice gave a definitive no on this one.

However that is an "unofficial" ruling and not an absolute rule. I don't think it was put into any errata or other "official" source.

My guess would be you wouldn't be able to in AL but I can't say you absolutely wont.

[Rhedyn]

I'm pretty sure you can't use gws with sneak attack because there is no weapon with the qualities to work for both.

I'm also sure that smite does not have the versatile or two handed property so those damage die cannot work either.

[Vaz]

"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"

Damage comes up for "Elemental Adept" feat; "when you roll damage for a spell that deals damage of that type, you can treat any 1 on a damage die as 2", and Polearm Master; "The weapon's damage die for this attack is a d4", and Savage Attacker; "you can reroll the weapon's damage die".

Then, we get to "Damage rolls", pg196; "Each weapon, spell, and harmful monster ability specifies the damage it deals. You roll the damage die or dice, add any modifiers, and apply the damage to the target. Magic weapons, special abilities, and other factors can grant a bonus to damage."

"Divine Smite; you can expend one spell slot to deal radiant damage to the target, in addition to the weapon's damage. The extra damage is..."

Pretty damn obvious that it's only the weapon, and despite seeing arguments to the contrary, they are utterly and completely wrong. See this is the problem with discussions - 100 people can say 1 thing, but if one person says the other because of wilful ignorance, and it gets catered with the same respect as the 100 other people as an equal argument, you've done the disservice of suggesting it's a 50:50 split, when in reality it's a 100:1.

[Arial Black]

The crucial differentiation is that it applies to either 'the damage dice of the weapon' itself; it's 'damage code', or it applies to 'the damage dice from that attack'.

If it's 'weapon', then only the dice which make up the 'damage code' of the weapon are included.

If it's 'attack', then every damage die delivered by that successful attack roll are included: Smite, Sneak Attack, hex, Flame Tongue fire damage, everything.

These are the dice doubled by critical hits AND affected by GWF. They use the same key: the damage dice of the attack.

If you have GWF and wield a greatsword then the extra fire damage dice from your Flame Tongue, necrotic damage die from hex AND radiant damage dice from Smite ARE all "damage dice from an attack you make with a melee weapon that you are wielding with two hands". You are wielding that melee weapon in two hands, and those are all damage dice from that attack!

GWF never specifies or even implies weapon damage dice, or even 'bludgeoning, piercing or slashing' damage. It's a made-up restriction that does not appear in the description of GWF. It would be a houserule to limit it in that way, and houserules are not permitted in AL.

[PeteNutButter]

RAW: yes.

Sage Advice(the column not the useless tweets): Hard no.

Most DMs I've run into for AL follow Sage Advice.

As a general tip I try to avoid table dependent things for my builds in AL, as it really sucks when a DM just says, "No your character doesn't work." The lack of re-rolling though isn't a huge deal though if your character runs into a DM that stops it.

If you have a regular AL DM at a local store, I'd ask him/her. Be sure to bring up that sage advice says no, for full disclosure.

[Vaz]

The crucial differentiation is that it applies to either 'the damage dice of the weapon' itself; it's 'damage code', or it applies to 'the damage dice from that attack'.

If it's 'weapon', then only the dice which make up the 'damage code' of the weapon are included.

If it's 'attack', then every damage die delivered by that successful attack roll are included: Smite, Sneak Attack, hex, Flame Tongue fire damage, everything.

These are the dice doubled by critical hits AND affected by GWF. They use the same key: the damage dice of the attack.

If you have GWF and wield a greatsword then the extra fire damage dice from your Flame Tongue, necrotic damage die from hex AND radiant damage dice from Smite ARE all "damage dice from an attack you make with a melee weapon that you are wielding with two hands". You are wielding that melee weapon in two hands, and those are all damage dice from that attack!

GWF never specifies or even implies weapon damage dice, or even 'bludgeoning, piercing or slashing' damage. It's a made-up restriction that does not appear in the description of GWF. It would be a houserule to limit it in that way, and houserules are not permitted in AL.

No, those are additional, and extra damage. "You roll the damage die, add any modifiers"; so you roll the damage die, then you add the modifiers; such as Hex, Flame Tongue and Smite. Smite is a special ability which deals bonus damage. Hex deals extra damage. These are the modifiers.

[Willywilliamrtx]

No, those are additional, and extra damage. "You roll the damage die, add any modifiers"; so you roll the damage die, then you add the modifiers; such as Hex, Flame Tongue and Smite. Smite is a special ability which deals bonus damage. Hex deals extra damage. These are the modifiers.

You do know the ''modifiers'' part refers to static modifiers, right? Like your STR MODIFIER, or the static bonus you get from using GWM. If you need to roll dice to determine the value of a damage bonus, it's not a modifier.

I tend to stand with the ''allow'' side of things. GWF clearly says ''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, even if the new roll is a 1 or a 2. The weapon must have the Two-Handed or Versatile property for you to gain this benefit.'', and as multiple people have pointed out the Savage Attacker feat specifically points out you can reroll the ''weapon damage die.''

GWF says no such things, simply ''any 1 or 2 you roll for an attack you happen to make with a two-handed swing'' or as per the RAW ''any 1 or 2 you roll on damage dice for an attack, granted you made the attack with a weapon you hold in both hands''. People have already pointed out that Smite dice get doubled on a crit, because the damage dice are part of the attack and thus fall under the critical hit bonus. Same applies here.

Sage Advice has pointed out that's not what the RAI was (But hey, if you wanted to be specific about the weapon's damage dice you should've written it like Savage Attacker and there'd be no discussion to have in the first place) and that they rule it as their own personal RAI AT THEIR OWN TABLE. (And as a little tidbit they RAI it like this because they don't want to ''waste time rerolling dice''. Why have feats like this at all if you don't want to do that? Don't see how rerolling smite dice as well would suddenly add an hour to the rerolling of dice every session)

[Mhl7]

Pretty damn obvious that it's only the weapon, and despite seeing arguments to the contrary, they are utterly and completely wrong. See this is the problem with discussions - 100 people can say 1 thing, but if one person says the other because of wilful ignorance, and it gets catered with the same respect as the 100 other people as an equal argument, you've done the disservice of suggesting it's a 50:50 split, when in reality it's a 100:1.

No, it's not obvious and your argument is weaker than most argument presented for the contrary. You think your argument is correct because you base it on a false assumption (extra damage dice = damage modifiers). Once the false assumption is removed you can see yourself that the argument is weak and an argument can be made for both sides.

Also, I see the opinion split as 50:50.

No, those are additional, and extra damage. "You roll the damage die, add any modifiers"; so you roll the damage die, then you add the modifiers; such as Hex, Flame Tongue and Smite. Smite is a special ability which deals bonus damage. Hex deals extra damage. These are the modifiers.

This is the only thing in this thread that is utterly and completely wrong. Modifiers are only static modifiers. The extra dice are not modifiers, they are dice. They are extra dice, they are not weapon dice, but definitely dice and not modifiers.

[Zalabim]

If you have GWF and wield a greatsword then the extra fire damage dice from your Flame Tongue, necrotic damage die from hex AND radiant damage dice from Smite ARE all "damage dice from an attack you make with a melee weapon that you are wielding with two hands". You are wielding that melee weapon in two hands, and those are all damage dice from that attack!

GWF never specifies or even implies weapon damage dice, or even 'bludgeoning, piercing or slashing' damage. It's a made-up restriction that does not appear in the description of GWF. It would be a houserule to limit it in that way, and houserules are not permitted in AL.
Except when it specifies it has to be an attack with a weapon, not just any attack, and not just any weapon either. An attack with a melee weapon that you are wielding with two hands, and that weapon has to have the two-handed or versatile property. It actually talks a great deal about weapons. It's easy to see how someone could wrongly believe that it only works on the damage dice of the weapon.

[Willywilliamrtx]

Except when it specifies it has to be an attack with a weapon, not just any attack, and not just any weapon either. An attack with a melee weapon that you are wielding with two hands, and that weapon has to have the two-handed or versatile property. It actually talks a great deal about weapons. It's easy to see how someone could wrongly believe that it only works on the damage dice of the weapon.

And that is how we arrive at these discussions. RAW you reroll every dice that you as a player roll when hitting with a melee weapon attack using a two-handed/versatile-using weapon. The developers RAI otherwise at their table. At the same time it hasn't been errata'd to specify, so in every sense of the word it's up for your own interpretation.

My DM uses the developer RAI as well, which I feel completely puts taking GWF out of the question (because let's be honest, who would rather get +0.66 per weapon dice from a greatsword vs +2 static on a longsword[putting it about 0.5 average behind a greatsword without GWF] and +2AC from the shield you can now wear)

[Rhedyn]

I still think that since smite's damage die do not possess the versatile or two-handed properties then GWS does not effect them.

[Willywilliamrtx]

I still think that since smite's damage die do not possess the versatile or two-handed properties then GWS does not effect them.

To be fair GWF states ''damage die of an attack made with..'' - not ''damage die of a two-handed/versatile weapon you attack with''

[RipTide]

Ok here is a question say i have great weapon fighting and use Green Flame Blade, assume the character is at least level 5. Using a Great sword the attack would deal 2d6 + 1d8 + mod to the first target and 1d8 + mod to a second target. Can I reroll that 1d8 to the second target? Its all part of GFB which is part of an attack made with a 2h weapon. To me it seems obvious that, no you don't get to reroll the d8 on the second target.

The way people are arguing to apply smite to GWF it would apply here too. I made an attack, meaning an attack roll, with a 2h weapon, the d8 to the second target is part of that attack, so I can reroll that damage. The text for GWF doesn't specify anything about targets so just because you didn't make the attack against the second target doesn't make a difference. Yet it still seems absolutely absurd that you could reroll the damage done to the second target. To me it seems to follow if it doesn't make sense to reroll part of it (the d8 damage to the second target) it doesn't make sense to reroll nay of it(the d8 damage to the first target). Since smite applys in the same way as the cantrip it makes sense to me that you should not be able to reroll the damage of smite.

note - I realize this is a slightly convoluted way of getting around to it, but it makes sense to me so i figured why not put this argument out there.

[Biggstick]

My DM uses the developer RAI as well, which I feel completely puts taking GWF out of the question (because let's be honest, who would rather get +0.66 per weapon dice from a greatsword vs +2 static on a longsword[putting it about 0.5 average behind a greatsword without GWF] and +2AC from the shield you can now wear)

I've played with plenty of people who love the image of a Greatsword wielding character. It speaks to them, and they're willing to make the trade of efficiency for a "cool" looking character.

I myself have only ever played 1 two-handed weapon PC, but it was a Barbarian and the game didn't last longer then a month. Bit of a different story though there altogether.


-Snip-

Can I re-roll GFB damage with GWF as well?

-Snip-

I don't think the debate is going to end on the GWF point until WOTC put out an errata modifying the wording of GWF. Until then, we're stuck with the technical RAW of being able to re-roll all the damage dice 1's and 2's, and WOTC telling us what they intended (RAI) with the fighting style (which was to only re-roll weapon dice).

The real answer for the OP, and for everyone else at the table, is to bring up the question to the DM. Because it doesn't matter what some folks on an internet forum say. It matters if your DM thinks GWF'ers need that little bit of help.

Personally, and at my table, they are allowed to re-roll. I also give Players at my table a 1.5 damage modifier when using Strength as a modifier with two-handed or one handed versatile weapons (This gives 14 Str and 18 Str some extra value, and makes people feel like they hit particularly hard with those weapons). Sure, it ups their damage floor a bit, but it makes those PC's who sacrifice the defense of a shield feel like they're really doing some damage. And let's be honest, doing damage is such a small part of the game. It's easy for a DM to simply increase the hit points of something arbitrarily. Don't tell your Players that you're doing this, of course. But let your "DPS," roll those damage dice! It's what they built their PC for.

[Spiritchaser]

For my table, I don't have players re roll.

I have them take a 1 as the highest number. Saves time, and no time issues with smites

Yes this does make great weapon fighting a hair stronger but not much

Assuming an 18 strength, a normal gwf greatsword attack would do 12.33 damage on average

With the quick method a gwf greatsword does 12.67 with that 18 strength.

That's 3% more. Not worth worrying about

[Tanarii]

If I show up at an AL table with a paladin and I choose this fighting style, am I rerolling 1's and 2's on my smites, yes or no?Rough estimate, at an AL table I'd say 75% chance no you're not, and 25% chance yes you are. This is completely and utterly based on a seat-of-the-pants estimate of my AL experiences, and in no way indicates I actually kept any track of when it was ruled on one way or the other. :smallwink: But I figured someone should try to answer the actual question of what will happen at an AL table other than just argue which is 'correct'. :smallamused:

[Vogonjeltz]

I've seen arguments on both sides.

If I show up at an AL table with a paladin and I choose this fighting style, am I rerolling 1's and 2's on my smites, yes or no?

RAW, No.

dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-answers-april-2016


A common mistake is to think that Smite is a weapon attack; It is not, it's a rider appended 'to' a weapon attack, "when you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack" (PHB 85). In neither case would those damage dice be affected by anything acting on an attack made by a melee weapon. (PHB 72, 84)

Critical hits only double those dice because they double "other damage dice" (PHB 196) as well.


However that is an "unofficial" ruling and not an absolute rule. I don't think it was put into any errata or other "official" source.

Sage Advice is an official product by Crawford.

[Arial Black]

A common mistake is to think that Smite is a weapon attack

No-one thinks that Smite is a weapon attack. However, the extra Smite dice are part of the damage of that attack.


"when you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack"

...you can add Smite dice. "When you roll a 1 or 2 on a damage die for an attack you make with a melee weapon" you can re-roll them.

Both apply "when you make an attack with a melee weapon". If the melee weapon you hit with happens to be a melee weapon you are wielding in two hands, then both apply.


Critical hits only double those dice because they double "other damage dice" (PHB 196) as well.

No, crits double ALL of the dice delivered by that attack roll because the crit rule is simply, "Roll all of the attack’s damage dice twice and add them together", not because of the example it gives about Sneak Attack dice.

[Klorox]

I think it makes the fighting style decent instead of a sub-par choice. I like it.

[HolyDraconus]

If you show up to an AL table the answer is no.

[MeeposFire]

I think it makes the fighting style decent instead of a sub-par choice. I like it.

It also makes it more annoying if you are one that does not having people rerolling a lot of stuff or if you like things that actually increase max damage rather than just messing with the averages. By my comment it is clear I am not a fan of the style though it is not a balance issue rather just I hate the idea especially since it can potentially lower your damage (even if unlikely).

[Vogonjeltz]

No-one thinks that Smite is a weapon attack. However, the extra Smite dice are part of the damage of that attack.

No, it's an ability that activates on a successful attack. It is definitely not part of the attack itself.

[Jerrykhor]

No, it's an ability that activates on a successful attack. It is definitely not part of the attack itself.

No, Smite IS part of the attack, just as Sneak Attack is. It is stated in 'Critical Hits' that 'the attack's damage dice' is inclusive of Sneak Attack damage die as an example.

This is one of the best cases of RAW vs RAI.

[Vogonjeltz]

No, Smite IS part of the attack, just as Sneak Attack is. It is stated in 'Critical Hits' that 'the attack's damage dice' is inclusive of Sneak Attack damage die as an example.

This is one of the best cases of RAW vs RAI.

That's a common misreading.

Relevant text from the critical hit section on other damage dice that are doubled:
"If the attack involves other damage dice" <---Not a weapon attack.

Divine Smite text:
"when you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack, you can expend one paladin spell slot to deal radiant damage to the target, in addition to the weapon's damage."

It's a clear rider to the weapon attack, it isn't the attack itself. GWFS keys off of: "for an attack you make with a melee weapon".


Rider abilities aren't melee weapons nor attacks themselves despite hinging on attacks using melee weapons, although that distinction is easily missed when someone skims the text instead of reading closely.

[Arial Black]

That's a common misreading.

Relevant text from the critical hit section on other damage dice that are doubled:
"If the attack involves other damage dice" <---Not a weapon attack.

Divine Smite text:
"when you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack, you can expend one paladin spell slot to deal radiant damage to the target, in addition to the weapon's damage."

It's a clear rider to the weapon attack, it isn't the attack itself. GWFS keys off of: "for an attack you make with a melee weapon".


Rider abilities aren't melee weapons nor attacks themselves despite hinging on attacks using melee weapons, although that distinction is easily missed when someone skims the text instead of reading closely.

Sneak Attack says: "Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an attack"

Divine Smite says: "when you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack, you can expend one paladin spell slot to deal radiant damage to the target, in addition to the weapon’s damage"

"Extra damage" and "additional damage" are not different concepts with different rules attached.

Both Sneak Attack and Divine Smite, plus every single other source of additional damage, simply increase the amount of damage done by that attack.

The GWF style applies "When you roll a 1 or 2 on a damage die for an attack you make". The damage for an attack is the damage done by that successful attack roll, no matter the source of that damage.

For a counter example, if your attack with, say, a poisoned weapon had the victim make a save and he only took the poison damage on a failed save, then the poison damage would not be from the successful attack but from the failed save, so would not be affected by critical hits or GWF. However, if the attack merely does extra poison damage when it hits, without any saving throw involved, then that poison damage would be affected by crits and GWF equally.

[Jerrykhor]

That's a common misreading.

Relevant text from the critical hit section on other damage dice that are doubled:
"If the attack involves other damage dice" <---Not a weapon attack.

Divine Smite text:
"when you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack, you can expend one paladin spell slot to deal radiant damage to the target, in addition to the weapon's damage."

It's a clear rider to the weapon attack, it isn't the attack itself. GWFS keys off of: "for an attack you make with a melee weapon".


Rider abilities aren't melee weapons nor attacks themselves despite hinging on attacks using melee weapons, although that distinction is easily missed when someone skims the text instead of reading closely.

Oh I read it close enough alright. You don't have to sound so condescending by assuming I'm a moron, when you are the one lacking basic comprehension skills and analytical ability. You quoted and highlight key words, but still fail to grasp the concept. What is so hard to understand? Sneak attack and Smites cannot exist on their own (without weapon attack), therefore they are part of the attack, simple as that. It doesn't matter that the damage type may be different.

You would be right if GWFS reads like this: "When you roll 1 or 2 on a weapon damage die for an attack you make with a melee weapon..."

[Vogonjeltz]

Oh I read it close enough alright. You don't have to sound so condescending by assuming I'm a moron, when you are the one lacking basic comprehension skills and analytical ability. You quoted and highlight key words, but still fail to grasp the concept. What is so hard to understand? Sneak attack and Smites cannot exist on their own (without weapon attack), therefore they are part of the attack, simple as that. It doesn't matter that the damage type may be different.

You would be right if GWFS reads like this: "When you roll 1 or 2 on a weapon damage die for an attack you make with a melee weapon..."

Don't take it personally when you get information wrong.

This isn't about you, the WotC has already stated that it doesn't apply. As a question of fact, this matter was resolved long ago.

[Arial Black]

Don't take it personally when you get information wrong.

This isn't about you, the WotC has already stated that it doesn't apply. As a question of fact, this matter was resolved long ago.

WOTC stated that it wasn't intended to apply. However, GWF is worded in such a way that, RAW, it does apply.

Now, each of us can make our own choice about whether to follow RAW or RAI (except AL which must abide by RAW), but it may be helpful to point out that RAW makes for a better balanced fighting style than RAI, which would leave GWF severely underpowered compared to the other styles.

[Kryx]

Ugh, this has been discussed for years now.

except AL which must abide by RAW
Can you provide a source for this claimed fact? Based on the earlier responses it seems that most AL DMs follow the official sage advice column which I believe the ruling for GWF was posted in.


RAW makes for a better balanced fighting style than RAI, which would leave GWF severely underpowered compared to the other styles.
Can you provide a source for this claimed fact? Based on my Fighting Styles Math (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d-9xDdath8kX_v7Rpts9JFIJwIG3X0-dDUtfax14NT0/edit#gid=582756521) the defensive style offers about 10% more effective defense. In comparison to that RAW TWF offers about 12% more damage than Defensive. Dueling offers about 15% more than defensive, and Archery offers about 20% more than defensive. RAW GWF with GWM offers about 7% more than defensive, but that boils down to -5/+10 offering an incredible amount of damage, thus distorting the numbers. If you replace -5/+10 with +1 strength then GWF offers about 11% more damage than defensive.

The value of both GWM and Archery are distored by -5/+10. Without that the deviance is not there (See houserules).


Applying GWF to all additive attacks only distorts the Paladin and BM fighter to be higher (especially the paladin). It does not add balance.

[Zalabim]

Now, each of us can make our own choice about whether to follow RAW or RAI (except AL which must abide by RAW), but it may be helpful to point out that RAW makes for a better balanced fighting style than RAI, which would leave GWF severely underpowered compared to the other styles.

It's this **** misconception that I have to take issue with. RAI is balanced just fine as has been demonstrated many times. The other option is stronger, not exactly imbalanced, but certainly gives incentives to play in ways which wouldn't normally need any encouragement.

[Arcangel4774]

You've heard arguments for both sides, but officially, as mentioned in the AL FAQ, sage advice is completely up to the DM to decide.

[Arial Black]

Ugh, this has been discussed for years now.

Can you provide a source for this claimed fact? Based on the earlier responses it seems that most AL DMs follow the official sage advice column which I believe the ruling for GWF was posted in.


Can you provide a source for this claimed fact? Based on my Fighting Styles Math (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d-9xDdath8kX_v7Rpts9JFIJwIG3X0-dDUtfax14NT0/edit#gid=582756521) the defensive style offers about 10% more effective defense. In comparison to that RAW TWF offers about 12% more damage than Defensive. Dueling offers about 15% more than defensive, and Archery offers about 20% more than defensive. RAW GWF with GWM offers about 7% more than defensive, but that boils down to -5/+10 offering an incredible amount of damage, thus distorting the numbers. If you replace -5/+10 with +1 strength then GWF offers about 11% more damage than defensive.

The value of both GWM and Archery are distored by -5/+10. Without that the deviance is not there (See houserules).


Applying GWF to all additive attacks only distorts the Paladin and BM fighter to be higher (especially the paladin). It does not add balance.

I'll simplify the problem in order to highlight what is wrong.

The longsword. THE classic D&D weapon.

It does 1d8 damage used in one hand (1H) and 1d10 damage used two-handed (2H). Average 1H = 4.5, average 2H = 5.5.

So far, so ordinary. It does more damage 2H than it does 1H. Well, DUH! Obviously it does more damage 2H than 1H! What kind of moron would you have to be to think is was the other way round?

Well, if you're trained in a 1H or 2H fighting style, then you should do more damage in that style, right? Sure, that makes sense!

But if you are trained equally in BOTH 1H AND 2H fighting styles, then the assumption that you do more damage 2H than 1H remains unchanged, right?

Right?

Okay, we know that without any fighting styles 2H longsword does more damage than 1H, 5.5 to 4.5. Let's see what happens when you are trained in both the 1H AND 2H styles, and see if 2H still does more damage than 1H:-

* longsword 1H Duelling style = 1d8 + 2 = 4.5 + 2 = 6.5

* longsword 2H GWF style = 1d10 re-roll 1 or 2 = 6.3

Wait, what? With both styles, instead of the expected 2H doing more damage, suddenly 1H is doing more damage!

Something is very wrong here. The mechanics of GWF do not adequately model the fact that 2H should do more damage than 1H when the user is equally trained in both styles!

What can we do to fix this? We don't want to actually change anything because we either want to play RAW or we are required to play RAW for AL.

The answer is this: allow GWF to work exactly as it is written! It applies to the damage dice of that attack.

This may not have been intended, but it is how GWF is worded AND goes some way to address the ridiculous hole in the logic that allows 1H to do more damage than 2H!

BTW, this imbalance is even more ridiculous when you consider that the 1H guy can get +2 AC from a shield. He does more damage AND has a better AC! Why would any sane person EVER choose GWF if it were nerfed by the ill-advised RAI?

[PeteNutButter]

I'll simplify the problem in order to highlight what is wrong.

The longsword. THE classic D&D weapon.

It does 1d8 damage used in one hand (1H) and 1d10 damage used two-handed (2H). Average 1H = 4.5, average 2H = 5.5.

So far, so ordinary. It does more damage 2H than it does 1H. Well, DUH! Obviously it does more damage 2H than 1H! What kind of moron would you have to be to think is was the other way round?

Well, if you're trained in a 1H or 2H fighting style, then you should do more damage in that style, right? Sure, that makes sense!

But if you are trained equally in BOTH 1H AND 2H fighting styles, then the assumption that you do more damage 2H than 1H remains unchanged, right?

Right?

Okay, we know that without any fighting styles 2H longsword does more damage than 1H, 5.5 to 4.5. Let's see what happens when you are trained in both the 1H AND 2H styles, and see if 2H still does more damage than 1H:-

* longsword 1H Duelling style = 1d8 + 2 = 4.5 + 2 = 6.5

* longsword 2H GWF style = 1d10 re-roll 1 or 2 = 6.3

Wait, what? With both styles, instead of the expected 2H doing more damage, suddenly 1H is doing more damage!

Something is very wrong here. The mechanics of GWF do not adequately model the fact that 2H should do more damage than 1H when the user is equally trained in both styles!

What can we do to fix this? We don't want to actually change anything because we either want to play RAW or we are required to play RAW for AL.

The answer is this: allow GWF to work exactly as it is written! It applies to the damage dice of that attack.

This may not have been intended, but it is how GWF is worded AND goes some way to address the ridiculous hole in the logic that allows 1H to do more damage than 2H!

BTW, this imbalance is even more ridiculous when you consider that the 1H guy can get +2 AC from a shield. He does more damage AND has a better AC! Why would any sane person EVER choose GWF if it were nerfed by the ill-advised RAI?

Using a longsword 2-handed to illustrate the point is just dishonest. You don't build an optimized character to use a longsword with two hands. It is just bad, and a waste.

That is no different than saying sword and board style sucks, because my dagger with it only does 1d4 damage. Well stop using a ****ing dagger!

GWF doesn't need a buff because GWM makes it the best melee style. It is fine as is.

[Arial Black]

Using a longsword 2-handed to illustrate the point is just dishonest.

When comparing two things, the correct way to do so is to make everything else equal (if you can) so that you know that any difference can only be from the things you are comparing.

Anything else would be....dishonest.

As dishonest as saying something like:-


GWF doesn't need a buff because GWM makes it the best melee style

Really? GWF style is good because a completely different game element exists, that you may or may not have?

This claim is equivalent to saying, "Dueling is the best melee style because the Shield Master feat exists!"

[Cazero]

The answer is this: allow GWF to work exactly as it is written! It applies to the damage dice of that attack.
Considering your "fix" does litteraly nothing to solve that problem on the Fighter, I'm going to say it only makes GWF overpowered on Paladin.

BTW, this imbalance is even more ridiculous when you consider that the 1H guy can get +2 AC from a shield. He does more damage AND has a better AC! Why would any sane person EVER choose GWF if it were nerfed by the ill-advised RAI?
You don't need fighting styles for that to be an issue. 1 average damage is rarely worth 2 AC. The versatile property is ridiculously weak. Try fixing that.

[Kryx]

Considering your "fix" does litteraly nothing to solve that problem on the Fighter, I'm going to say it only makes GWF overpowered on Paladin.
100% this. Adding GWF to additional dice only empowers the paladin and the BM Fighter. It does not fix the issue across the board. If a true fix is proposed then that's something worth discussing. Pushing for a reading of the rules that ignores intent isn't.


The versatile property is ridiculously weak. Try fixing that.
Agreed, the scenario shows that the versatile property sucks more than anything.



Though I do agree Arial that the Dueling Fighting style with a shield is rather ridiculous. I have a houserule that the bonus is only +1 if you are wielding a shield (+2 if you have no other weapon as normal).

[Vogonjeltz]

WOTC stated that it wasn't intended to apply. However, GWF is worded in such a way that, RAW, it does apply.

Now, each of us can make our own choice about whether to follow RAW or RAI (except AL which must abide by RAW), but it may be helpful to point out that RAW makes for a better balanced fighting style than RAI, which would leave GWF severely underpowered compared to the other styles.

The RAW are thus:
1) GWFS only applies to an attack.
2) Divine Smite isn't an attack.

You seem to agree on point 1, so the confusion must lie with point 2.

What basis do you have for thinking that Divine Smite is an attack, and therefore eligible?

[PeteNutButter]

When comparing two things, the correct way to do so is to make everything else equal (if you can) so that you know that any difference can only be from the things you are comparing.

Anything else would be....dishonest.

As dishonest as saying something like:-

Really? GWF style is good because a completely different game element exists, that you may or may not have?

This claim is equivalent to saying, "Dueling is the best melee style because the Shield Master feat exists!"

When balancing things its best to assume optimal choices, in so far as the obvious optimal choices are. I.E. you don't balance S&B style around using a dagger, as if you did the guy that then just picked up the longsword will out damage everything. You shouldn't balance GWF around using a versatile weapon, because likewise the first guy to pick up a great sword is ahead of the curve. If you did either you end up buffing the optimal choice beyond the others.

The fact is that GWM and SS are the most abused feats in the game. They have the potential to greatly increase damage, especially against lower AC targets and/or when combined with ways to increase attack rolls. If you took off the defensive part of Shield Master and replaced it with a -5/+10 for 1-handers it would make S&B king in a heartbeat. The GWF style is clearly balanced with the feat in mind as it is intentionally weaker, which sucks for games without feats. In games without feats using a 2-hander is fairly bad in most cases by comparison.

[Zalabim]

Putting aside how inappropriate the comparison is, as a mere curiosity, the GWF style still averages more damage against an Animated Armor at level 1, for example. This is because critical hits with dueling use 2d8+2 (average 11) and critical hits with GWF use 2d10 (average 12.6). It can add up to a big difference in some corner cases.

[Arial Black]

The RAW are thus:
1) GWFS only applies to an attack.

No it doesn't! GWF applies to the damage dice done by an attack.


2) Divine Smite isn't an attack.

But it does add dice to the damage dice done by that attack. Just like Sneak Attack.

[Arial Black]

Adding GWF to additional dice only empowers the paladin and the BM Fighter. It does not fix the issue across the board. If a true fix is proposed then that's something worth discussing. Pushing for a reading of the rules that ignores intent isn't.

Agreed, but a small fix is better than no fix.


Agreed, the scenario shows that the versatile property sucks more than anything.

Again, agreed, but to properly fix it you'd have to change the rules. There are times where you are unwilling or unable to change the rules, so using RAW instead of RAI is your only available fix, however small.


Though I do agree Arial that the Dueling Fighting style with a shield is rather ridiculous. I have a houserule that the bonus is only +1 if you are wielding a shield (+2 if you have no other weapon as normal).

When I first read the 5E fighting styles they instantly reminded me of the 2E fighting styles from the Fighter's Handbook, which were: single weapon, two weapon, two-handed, and weapon & shield.

I made the (it turns out, incorrect) assumption that the four 5E fighting styles were the same idea; that if you were equipped with weapon and shield then that was the fighting style you could use but you could not use another of those four.

So I thought that Dueling was only available if you did not have a weapon or shield in your off hand and you were not using your weapon two-handed.

This pleased me. This meant that all four styles had a legitimate niche.

Then I find out that you could use the single weapon Dueling style whilst using a shield! What's the point of that? All you've done is take away the single weapon way of fighting, and in a way that doesn't make sense!

My houserule is to simply revert to the way I thought it was originally: Dueling style can only be used if at the instant you make the attack that hopes to gain the +2 damage, you have no weapon or shield in your off hand, and are not using your weapon two-handed.

All that is required is to add (re-instate?) the words 'or shield' into the description of the fighting style, thus:-

"When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons or shield, you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon"

This leads to a much more desirable balance, IMHO.

[Tanarii]

When I first read the 5E fighting styles they instantly reminded me of the 2E fighting styles from the Fighter's Handbook, which were: single weapon, two weapon, two-handed, and weapon & shield.

I made the (it turns out, incorrect) assumption that the four 5E fighting styles were the same idea; that if you were equipped with weapon and shield then that was the fighting style you could use but you could not use another of those four.I thought they were the same thing. I was shocked, shocked I tell you!, to find when I came online that anyone might think that Dueling FS could be used with a shield.

Then I found out it was RAI. /Facepalm

[KorvinStarmast]

No, it's an ability that activates on a successful attack. It is definitely not part of the attack itself. I like the way you put that. Divine Smite (and sneak attack for that matter) cannot add their damage on a unsuccessful attack.
I thought they were the same thing. I was shocked, shocked I tell you!, to find when I came online that anyone might think that Dueling FS could be used with a shield. Then I found out it was RAI. /Facepalm Since a shield is not a weapon, that is also supported by a literal reading of the text. (I believe I am in support of your point here).

Page 3 of the SA compendium


Can a fighter have two fighting styles active at once?
Dueling and Defense, for example. You can benefit from more than one Fighting Style option at a time, as long as they aren’t mutually exclusive as Dueling and Great Weapon Fighting are.


Is the Dueling fighting style intended to support a shield?
Yes. A character with the Dueling option usually pairs a one-handed weapon with a shield, a spell casting focus, or a or a free hand.


Page 4 of the SA compendium

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 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 of numerous rerolls would bog the game down.

Citations provided for general reference/info to folks coming to this thread.

[Tanarii]

I like the way you put that. Divine Smite (and sneak attack for that matter) cannot add their damage on a unsuccessful attack. Since a shield is not a weapon, that is also supported by a literal reading of the text. (I believe I am in support of your point here).

Page 3 of the SA compendium

Citations provided for general reference/info to folks coming to this thread.
Yes absolutely, I was letting my preconceived notion out-weight a careful reading of the RAW language and make me think the apparently intentional RAI intent was clearly ridiculous. I still think it's not the bestest of all design decisions, but accept it's the way they chose to do things and it's really a relatively minor issue in the grand scheme of things. Only fairly hard-core optimizers really care about such things.

[Vogonjeltz]

No it doesn't! GWF applies to the damage dice done by an attack.

A distinction without a difference. If Divine Smite is NOT an attack its damage dice are NOT eligible.

Explain why you think Divine Smite is an attack.


But it does add dice to the damage dice done by that attack. Just like Sneak Attack.

Addition to does not make it of the attack. GWFS still only applies to damage dice of the attack, not of riders.


I like the way you put that. Divine Smite (and sneak attack for that matter) cannot add their damage on a unsuccessful attack.

Thank you for the compliment, and thank you for posting the sage advice explanation as well.

[Willywilliamrtx]

A distinction without a difference. If Divine Smite is NOT an attack its damage dice are NOT eligible.

Explain why you think Divine Smite is an attack.


I'd agree to the elitist way of condescendingly talking down on the guy arguing GWF applies to Smites, we're it not for the fact you're so stuck on this ''only applies to an attack'' way of thinking.

You're making 1 attack, you get to add smite/sneak attack to it if it hits. Now: Is Smite/Sneak Attack damage part of the attack or not? Is it not? Then why does the damage automatically hit? Why is there no seperate attack roll?

I'd also like to note that the ruling for critical hits starts out with ''When you score a critical hit, you get to roll extra dice for the attack's damage against the target. Roll all of the attack's damage dice and add them together......If the attack involves other damage dice, such as from the rogue's Sneak Attack feature, you roll those dice twice as well.''

Clearly stating only the attack's damage dice, yet it includes sneak attack/smite/etc. Your argument that Smite isn't an attack and thusly doesn't apply with GWF is just misplaced.


RAI GWF doesn't work with damage through anything else but the weapon's damage dice
RAW GWF works with any dice you roll as part of the attack (because it's not specified, unlike with the Savage Attacker feat)

Rule at your own table however you wish, simple as that. (Although it irks me that the only reason SA RAI's it the way they do is so ''you don't spend ages rerolling dice'' as opposed to imbalance or any other actual valid reason. Come on now, rerolling 2-5 extra dice doesn't make the session take 3 extra hours)

[Willywilliamrtx]

To add my own opinion: A GWF greatsword averages to 16.8 damage (2 attacks on a 20AC enemy with +11 to hit at lvl 20) and a Dueling longsword averages at 15 damage (same story). The difference is there, having the slight edge on GWF, but it's near negligible considering the longsword wielder has +2 AC from his shield and will most problaly stay in the fight longer than the greatsword wielder.


My suggestion: Stick to the RAI and change GWF to reroll 1's indefinitely (bumps the average a tad and completely removes the chance of getting a 1 on a damage roll) - seems more fair throughout a campaign and the GWF also has the Bonus Action attack from GWM. For rerolling of Smite dice etc: Make your own magical item! (With attunement, duhh) You give your character more fluff through a specific magic item that empowers your Smites to be more potent. Seems coolio to me.

[Arial Black]

I'd agree to the elitist way of condescendingly talking down on the guy arguing GWF applies to Smites, we're it not for the fact you're so stuck on this ''only applies to an attack'' way of thinking.

You're making 1 attack, you get to add smite/sneak attack to it if it hits. Now: Is Smite/Sneak Attack damage part of the attack or not? Is it not? Then why does the damage automatically hit? Why is there no seperate attack roll?

I'd also like to note that the ruling for critical hits starts out with ''When you score a critical hit, you get to roll extra dice for the attack's damage against the target. Roll all of the attack's damage dice and add them together......If the attack involves other damage dice, such as from the rogue's Sneak Attack feature, you roll those dice twice as well.''

Clearly stating only the attack's damage dice, yet it includes sneak attack/smite/etc. Your argument that Smite isn't an attack and thusly doesn't apply with GWF is just misplaced.


RAI GWF doesn't work with damage through anything else but the weapon's damage dice
RAW GWF works with any dice you roll as part of the attack (because it's not specified, unlike with the Savage Attacker feat)

Rule at your own table however you wish, simple as that. (Although it irks me that the only reason SA RAI's it the way they do is so ''you don't spend ages rerolling dice'' as opposed to imbalance or any other actual valid reason. Come on now, rerolling 2-5 extra dice doesn't make the session take 3 extra hours)

This. All this. Thanks for saving me the trouble of typing it myself.

Also, about the totally spurious 'reasoning' of wanting to save time? What a load of bollocks! If your attack dice are 2d6, you roll and add them. If you re-roll 1s and 2s, but if those dice come up 1 or 2 again you do not re-roll them again, then the process is: roll->check to see if any dice were 1 or 2->re-roll those dice->add the totals together.

If your attack dice were 2d6 from greatsword, 1d6 from hex, 4d8 from Smite, 2d6 from Flaming Sword.....the process is unchanged! You still: roll->check for 1s and 2s->re-roll those->add up.

Nothing has changed! Two rolls maximum, no matter how many damage dice are rolled for that single attack!

Sage Advice has often tried to explain why they made such and such a decision, but this is by far the most spurious they have ever given.

BTW, I note that if the wording of GWF were changed such that 1s and 2s were re-rolled until the dice showed something other than a 1 or 2, this might take a long time. It would also be completely pointless since the whole process could be replaced by a single roll. For example, 1d10 re-roll 1s and 2s until they aren't 1 or 2 is mathematically identical to 1d8+2. The same as Dueling. The taking away of infinite re-rolling of 1s and 2s automatically makes GWF do mathematically less bonus damage than Dueling, if GWF were only to apply to the damage code of the weapon type being used.

[BurgerBeast]

Edit: I've edited out some comments that were personal and unnecessary. I'm sorry, Vogonjeltz.

Vogonjeltz, edited out.

When a paladin smites, how many attacks is he making?

(The answer is one. [(edited out), I feel the need to state that, yes, the paladin might make more than one attack using the attack action, but I am talking about one smite. If you want to talk about multiple attacks we could look at each one individually and break it down in the same way.])

What type of attack is it?

(The answer is that it is a weapon attack.)

So, by this reading, you are wrong. The attack is a weapon attack. The extra damage is not weapon damage, but it comes from a weapon attack. (If you claim that the smite damage does not come from the weapon attack, then please name the attack from which they come.)

I'm not saying that there may not be a better argument There may be a better argument out there to support your conclusion, but this argument fails.

[MeeposFire]

This. All this. Thanks for saving me the trouble of typing it myself.

Also, about the totally spurious 'reasoning' of wanting to save time? What a load of bollocks! If your attack dice are 2d6, you roll and add them. If you re-roll 1s and 2s, but if those dice come up 1 or 2 again you do not re-roll them again, then the process is: roll->check to see if any dice were 1 or 2->re-roll those dice->add the totals together.

If your attack dice were 2d6 from greatsword, 1d6 from hex, 4d8 from Smite, 2d6 from Flaming Sword.....the process is unchanged! You still: roll->check for 1s and 2s->re-roll those->add up.

Nothing has changed! Two rolls maximum, no matter how many damage dice are rolled for that single attack!

Sage Advice has often tried to explain why they made such and such a decision, but this is by far the most spurious they have ever given.

BTW, I note that if the wording of GWF were changed such that 1s and 2s were re-rolled until the dice showed something other than a 1 or 2, this might take a long time. It would also be completely pointless since the whole process could be replaced by a single roll. For example, 1d10 re-roll 1s and 2s until they aren't 1 or 2 is mathematically identical to 1d8+2. The same as Dueling. The taking away of infinite re-rolling of 1s and 2s automatically makes GWF do mathematically less bonus damage than Dueling, if GWF were only to apply to the damage code of the weapon type being used.

As a counter point I have done rerolling for a bunch of dice like that and yes I would agree with the designers IT WAS ANNOYING AS HELL. We dumped doing that before that decision came out because we did not want to deal with it and it is one of the reasons why nobody likes this fighting style. It was in fact the primary reason for us wanting to limit the ability not power. This ability only increases the average it does not actually make you deal more damage than potentially you already could it just makes the higher outcomes more likely (while potentially lowering your damage which is just dumb) so we are not scared of using it for powers sake.

Now if you are using a computer to do all of your rolls and it just gives you a total and so you do not physically have to continue rolling and have to do the math over again (or wait to do the math for the rolls to actually go through) then no problem but we really hate the stopping all the time to reroll and wait to do the math. We want to roll once figure things out easily and move on. This was also the reason why we chose to either not use brutal weapons in 4e or "forgot" to use them.

Now why is advantage is ok because it only has 2 dice and you merely choose the higher of the two and move on. Something that rolls a bunch of dice potentially over and over every round is just annoying. SOmetimes makes me want to have the Monty Python and the Holy Grail scene pop up with "GET ON WITH IT".

[Vogonjeltz]

I'd agree to the elitist way of condescendingly talking down on the guy arguing GWF applies to Smites, we're it not for the fact you're so stuck on this ''only applies to an attack'' way of thinking.

You're making 1 attack, you get to add smite/sneak attack to it if it hits. Now: Is Smite/Sneak Attack damage part of the attack or not? Is it not? Then why does the damage automatically hit? Why is there no seperate attack roll?

I'd also like to note that the ruling for critical hits starts out with ''When you score a critical hit, you get to roll extra dice for the attack's damage against the target. Roll all of the attack's damage dice and add them together......If the attack involves other damage dice, such as from the rogue's Sneak Attack feature, you roll those dice twice as well.''

Clearly stating only the attack's damage dice, yet it includes sneak attack/smite/etc. Your argument that Smite isn't an attack and thusly doesn't apply with GWF is just misplaced.

You bolded the non-operative half of the critical hit text. The reason Divine Smite gets doubled is the second half that starts with "If the attack involves other damage dice"

It's other damage dice, not the weapon attack's damage dice.

I don't appreciate the condescendingly elitist tone.

Edit: I've edited out some comments that were personal and unnecessary. I'm sorry, Vogonjeltz.

Vogonjeltz, edited out.

When a paladin smites, how many attacks is he making?

(The answer is one. [(edited out), I feel the need to state that, yes, the paladin might make more than one attack using the attack action, but I am talking about one smite. If you want to talk about multiple attacks we could look at each one individually and break it down in the same way.])

What type of attack is it?

(The answer is that it is a weapon attack.)

So, by this reading, you are wrong. The attack is a weapon attack. The extra damage is not weapon damage, but it comes from a weapon attack. (If you claim that the smite damage does not come from the weapon attack, then please name the attack from which they come.)

I'm not saying that there may not be a better argument There may be a better argument out there to support your conclusion, but this argument fails.

Technically when a Paladin smites he's already made the attack.

"Starting at 2nd level, when you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack, you can expend one paladin spell slot to deal radiant damage to the target, in addition to the weapon's damage." (PHB 85)

Seems to clearly say it's different than the weapon attack which activated it as an option.

In point of fact, Divine Smite doesn't neatly correlate to the basic rule on if something is an attack: "If there's ever a question whether something you're doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack." (PHB 194)

So, no, I can't agree with the idea that the divine smite damage dice are damage dice for an attack made with a melee weapon. The divine smite damage dice come from a class feature that can itself be activated on a successful hit. Not an attack unto itself.

[Vaz]

Wait a sec, let me just check my condescending elitist tone. [/condescending elitist tone]

Vogonjeltz, you're flat out wrong, but you won't accept you're wrong, because you keep insisting the rules say something that they don't. You can't tell a colourblind person that the sky is blue if they see Blue as Red, and call it Red, after all.

[Arcangel4774]

Alright guys let's put this thread to rest. It's to a moot point, i.e. one where an agreement won't be reached. To summarize all of both sides:

1) sage advice says GWF only affects the weapon, not smites or anything else that could be included (hex, hunters mark, etc.)

A. They do so, siting too many dice rolls as primary and damage increase as secondary

I. Dice rolling seems a dubious reason, when minionmancy is a thing that's allowed, by raw and rai.
II. Damage increase when compared to dueling is less when applied to solely weapons (1.3 or .8 vs 2) Damage increase is greater when compared to dueling when applied to a 1st level smite (2.8 or 2.3 vs 2). For hex and hunters mark its on par for 2d6 weapons but less for 1d10 (1.5 vs 2).
III. GWF is weaker on average early, but stronger later with the increased chance of rolling dice for smites, larger smites, and other damage buffs, or special weapons.

B. Sage advice is an example of 5e rules vs ruling, and is always up to the DM's discretion (adventure league included) about whether to include it or not.


2) By RAW GWF only works with damage die by an attack made with 2h weapons.

A. There is a distinction between attack damage dice and weapon damage dice.

B. Divine smite and other similar bonus damage sources aren't themselves an attack.

I. They cause an attack to do extra/additional damage. I.e the damage caused by the attack is increased, yet the attack is still the source in terms of the feat.

C. Critical hit rules suggest a precedent for all bonuses being included. "Roll all of the attacks damage dice twice... [add] other damage dice, such as from rogue's sneak attack."

I. Use of the word "other" could suggest the the bonus damage dice are only applicable in this case and aren't, in fact, used in other cases.


If there is any key points for either side I can either edit this or create a new post but let us all be done with it.

[Vogonjeltz]

Vogonjeltz, you're flat out wrong, but you won't accept you're wrong, because you keep insisting the rules say something that they don't. You can't tell a colourblind person that the sky is blue if they see Blue as Red, and call it Red, after all.

I cited the rules; WotC explictitly stated this is the case.

Your response, to write a metaphor about how you think the text and wotc are wrong, is not convincing.


I. Use of the word "other" could suggest the the bonus damage dice are only applicable in this case and aren't, in fact, used in other cases.

This is the crux. The critical hit wording makes it clear that damage dice that do not stem from the weapon aren't themselves part of the attack, but they're still doubled.

The supposed "other side" has no textual basis for their claims.

[Vaz]

Yeah, but your interpretation is wrong.