Does Savage Attacker allow you to double roll extra damage dice?

[holywhippet]

The rules for this feat says you can roll weapon's damage dice twice and use either. If I had that feat and a flame tongue sword, does that mean I can roll both the regular damage and the 2d6 flame damage twice and pick either or just the regular damage?

For that matter, if I have a fighter with great weapon fighting as a fighting style can I reroll any 1s or 2s for the flame damage?

[Jerrykhor]

'....you can reroll the weapon's damage dice....'

Seems pretty clear to me.

[Dyndrilliac]

No: https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/01/26/does-the-savage-attacker-feat-apply-to-sneak-attack-or-divine-smite/

Flame Tongue can be applied to any sword-type weapon chassis. If it's a greatsword, you reroll the 2d6 base slashing damage done by the greatsword. If it's a longsword, you reroll the 1d8 (or 1d10, if holding it two-handed) slashing base damage done by the longsword.

Whatever type of sword your Flame Tongue is, locate that type on the weapons list in the PHB (page 149) and reroll its base damage.

[Avonar]

No: https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/01/26/does-the-savage-attacker-feat-apply-to-sneak-attack-or-divine-smite/

Flame Tongue can be applied to any sword-type weapon chassis. If it's a greatsword, you reroll the 2d6 base slashing damage done by the greatsword. If it's a longsword, you reroll the 1d8 (or 1d10, if holding it two-handed) slashing base damage done by the longsword.

Whatever type of sword your Flame Tongue is, locate that type on the weapons list in the PHB (page 149) and reroll its base damage.

Except Divine Smite is a bad example. Smites are a class ability you activate, the fire damage on a flame tongue is dealt by the weapon. Therefore weapon damage.

[DivisibleByZero]

Except Divine Smite is a bad example. Smites are a class ability you activate, the fire damage on a flame tongue is dealt by the weapon. Therefore weapon damage.

The smite damage is dealt by the weapon as well. It is produced by an ability, and dealt by a weapon. Just like the fire damage from the flame tongue is the product of the magic, not the weapon.

Any DM is free to allow it if he or she wants, but the intention is that it only applies to the weapon dice, not additional effects.

[mephnick]

Any DM is free to allow it if he or she wants, but the intention is that it only applies to the weapon dice, not additional effects.

Though it might actually be worth a feat if you ignore the intention instead of being far worse than an ASI.

[Dyndrilliac]

Except Divine Smite is a bad example. Smites are a class ability you activate, the fire damage on a flame tongue is dealt by the weapon. Therefore weapon damage.

Verbatim quote from PHB concerning Divine Smite (emphasis mine):
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.

Verbatim quote from DMG concerning Flame Tongue (emphasis mine):
While the sword is ablaze, it deals an extra 2d6 fire damage to any target it hits.

Both effects trigger on a hit as a result of a successful melee weapon attack. Both effects deal "additional" or "extra" damage. Any effect that would do additional damage beyond the unenchanted base weapon damage and triggers as the result of a successful melee weapon attack is incompatible with Savage Attacker.

[holywhippet]

Ok, thanks.

[Avonar]

Both effects trigger on a hit as a result of a successful melee weapon attack. Both effects deal "additional" or "extra" damage. Any effect that would do additional damage beyond the unenchanted base weapon damage and triggers as the result of a successful melee weapon attack is incompatible with Savage Attacker.

This may be pedantic, but hey welcome to D&D here, but there's a key wording difference there.

For Divine Smite: "you can expend one spell slot to deal radiant damage". The damage comes from you, hitting is just the trigger.

For Flametongue: "While the sword is ablaze, it deals an extra 2d6 fire damage". The damage clearly comes from the sword. Damage from the weapon = weapon damage?

I can see how it can be interpreted in different ways but I would allow Savage Attack to apply to innate weapon bonus damage. Divine Smite is also optional, while Flametongue damage is unavoidable, not an optional added effect.

[Lombra]

It should work with a magical weapon, regardless of rules, because I mean, come on! It's fine until it's used with smites and sneak attacks, so just don't apply it to those. Using only half of your magical weapon for a weapon's feat is just dumb.

[DivisibleByZero]

Using only half of your magical weapon for a weapon's feat is just dumb.

The opposing argument is that using magic stuff for a weapon's feat was not intended.

In regards to my previous statement, I wasn't making any claims about the relative power level, nor about the balance of it, nor about what's fun. Just what the rules are and what those rules are intended to mean.

[holywhippet]

I'm also wondering how savage attacker and great weapon fighting work together. If I'm understanding it correctly you'd roll damage twice because of savage attacker and if any of the dice come out as a 1 or 2 you can reroll them. It would take more time but that could lead to a much higher damage average.

[djreynolds]

Lance LaRock @launcelot69

@mikemearls @JeremyECrawford What happens if you have both the Great Weapon Fighting style and the Savage Attacker feat?




Jeremy Crawford @JeremyECrawford

If you use Savage Attacker with Great Weapon Fighting, the latter lets you reroll 1s and 2s in both rolls.

[Dyndrilliac]

@Avonar: You do you, boo. You're free to rule however strikes your fancy at home. But that's not what the devs intended (by their own admission), and so don't expect that to fly in organized play.

Edit: It's also important to point out that by RAW you can't use Savage Attacker with Unarmed Strikes because they are not a weapon (https://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/DND/SA-Compendium.pdf).


Does the Savage Attacker feat work with unarmed strikes? No. Savage Attacker relies on a weapon’s damage dice, and an unarmed strike isn’t a weapon (a point that was clarified in the Player’s Handbook errata).

Another thing to note is the use of the phrase "Savage Attacker relies on a weapon’s damage dice..." While the Flame Tongue enchantment has an effect that allows the weapon to deal additional fire damage, that additional fire damage is not part of the weapon's damage dice (the weapon's damage dice are those of the basic unenchanted version of the weapon to which the enchantment has been applied).

[Jerrykhor]

This may be pedantic, but hey welcome to D&D here, but there's a key wording difference there.

For Divine Smite: "you can expend one spell slot to deal radiant damage". The damage comes from you, hitting is just the trigger.

For Flametongue: "While the sword is ablaze, it deals an extra 2d6 fire damage". The damage clearly comes from the sword. Damage from the weapon = weapon damage?

I can see how it can be interpreted in different ways but I would allow Savage Attack to apply to innate weapon bonus damage. Divine Smite is also optional, while Flametongue damage is unavoidable, not an optional added effect.

You're twisting words to your advantage. Don't do that. Plus, your argument is wrong. It says 'weapon damage dice', not 'weapon damage'. Big difference.

Look at the weapons table in the PHB. Look at the 'damage' column. That is the weapon damage dice.

It annoys me how people don't get simple stuff.

[BeefGood]

It annoys me how people don't get simple stuff.
Recently I was trying to figure out whether monk unarmed strikes work for stunning strike (I think they do). Anyway, melee weapon attack, attack with melee weapon, melee attack with a weapon, melee-weapon attack....I don’t assume that stuff is simple anymore.

[Jerrykhor]

Recently I was trying to figure out whether monk unarmed strikes work for stunning strike (I think they do). Anyway, melee weapon attack, attack with melee weapon, melee attack with a weapon, melee-weapon attack....I don’t assume that stuff is simple anymore.

Haha, that's true.

[Æriwan]

The rules for this feat says you can roll weapon's damage dice twice and use either. If I had that feat and a flame tongue sword, does that mean I can roll both the regular damage and the 2d6 flame damage twice and pick either or just the regular damage?


Welp, I fully know that Jeremy's twits are the opposite of relable source (and that this tread is 5 years old), but : twitter .com/JeremyECrawford/status/769595492082647041
(oh and that Savage Attacks and Attackers are two completely different features) He did say that magic is part of the weapon's dice. Therefore why is the d6 cold part of the weapon but the d8 of radiant not part of it.
No: sageadvice .eu/2016/01/26/does-the-savage-attacker-feat-apply-to-sneak-attack-or-divine-smite/
Or even more, the d4/6/8 blud/pierc/slash not part of the weapon since it it litteraly determined by the weapon?

I would personally even go as far as to allow the fire from Green-flame blade, as it litteraly requires a weapon as part of the casting of the spell and it asks for a melee weapon attack, as such the fire is directly linked to the weapon. (Which aslo means that a monk can't Green-Flame Bladed thon fist. :P )

p.s. I don't have yet the level to post link, just removed the space that I've added.

[Chronos]

What's the weapon damage of a Sunblade? All of its damage is radiant, and it doesn't deal the same amount of damage as a longsword or shortsword.

[RSP]

RAW it works. I’d also say it’s RAI.

The tweets of Crawford are not official, first off. Secondly, his tweets referenced refer to different aspects of the game.

Flametongue is an example of a specific>general rule. A longsword generally does 1d8 or 1d10. A Flametongue long sword specifically changes the weapon’s damage dice.

As Chronos pointed out, we see this as well in other magic items, like the Sun Blade.

Generally, weapons do their damage from what’s shown in the PHB Table, but the RAW tells us to use specific changes rather than the general rules, when they’re provided.

For those wanting citation:

“This book contains rules, especially in parts 2 and 3, that govern how the game plays. That said, many racial traits, class features, spells, magic items, monster abilities, and other game elements break the general rules in some way, creating an exception to how the rest of the game works. Remember this: If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins.”

[loki_ragnarock]

RAW it works. I’d also say it’s RAI.

The tweets of Crawford are not official, first off. Secondly, his tweets referenced refer to different aspects of the game.

Flametongue is an example of a specific>general rule. A longsword generally does 1d8 or 1d10. A Flametongue long sword specifically changes the weapon’s damage dice.

As Chronos pointed out, we see this as well in other magic items, like the Sun Blade.

Generally, weapons do their damage from what’s shown in the PHB Table, but the RAW tells us to use specific changes rather than the general rules, when they’re provided.

For those wanting citation:

“This book contains rules, especially in parts 2 and 3, that govern how the game plays. That said, many racial traits, class features, spells, magic items, monster abilities, and other game elements break the general rules in some way, creating an exception to how the rest of the game works. Remember this: If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins.”

This is how I'd read it.

Mostly because reading it in every case as "Savage Attacker is the worst choice, every time, even in all of the edgiest edge cases" is lame.

[truemane]

Metamagic Mod: nothing as savage as Thread Necromancy!