Warlock AoA and THPs

[MThurston]

If anything gives a Warlock more Temp HPs, does that add to AoA working longer?

Example
My 5th level Warlock casts AoA and gets 15 Temp HPs. A fighter does Rally and gives him 8 more Temp HPs.

Does AoA end at 15 or 23 now?

[stack]

SRD (https://www.5thsrd.org/combat/damage_and_healing/#temporary-hit-points)- "If you have temporary hit points and receive more of them, you decide whether to keep the ones you have or to gain the new ones. "

[GlenSmash!]

If anything gives a Warlock more Temp HPs, does that add to AoA working longer?

Example
My 5th level Warlock casts AoA and gets 15 Temp HPs. A fighter inspires and gives him 8 more Temp HPs.

Does AoA end at 15 or 23 now?

Due to this:


SRD (https://www.5thsrd.org/combat/damage_and_healing/#temporary-hit-points)- "If you have temporary hit points and receive more of them, you decide whether to keep the ones you have or to gain the new ones. "

The question is not whether it ends at 15 or 23, but possibly 15 or 8. Personally I would choose 15.

[JackPhoenix]

If you replace AoA temp HP with temp HP from other source, you'll lose the benefits of AoA.

[MThurston]

Thought I had a conscept.

[tieren]

If you replace AoA temp HP with temp HP from other source, you'll lose the benefits of AoA.

I always thought as long as you had thps it would keep going, like killing enemies with Dark Ones Blessing.

[Misterwhisper]

If you replace AoA temp HP with temp HP from other source, you'll lose the benefits of AoA.

There are some loopholes however, Arcane Ward from the wizard Abjurers is the big one, it is not technically THP, it just works the same.

I was not playing it but I have seen a wizard find a way to take Armor of Agathys as an abjurer just for that combo.
Was a deep gnome too, got pretty crazy.

[Millstone85]

From the Sage Advice Compendium:
Can you extend the duration of armor of Agathys by gaining more temporary hit points?

The spell is meant to work only as long as you have the temporary hit points that the spell grants. When those temporary hit points are gone, the spell is done.

Keep in mind that temporary hit points aren’t cumulative (see PH, 198). If you have temporary hit points and receive more of them, you don’t add them together, unless a game feature says you can. You decide which temporary hit points to keep.

As an example, let’s say you’re a warlock with the Dark One’s Blessing feature, which gives you temporary hit points when you reduce a creature to 0 hit points. You currently have 2 temporary hit points remaining from armor of Agathys, you just slew a monster, and your Dark One’s Blessing can now give you 4 temporary hit points. If you take those temporary hit points, they replace the ones from armor of Agathys and end that spell, so you might not want to take them and keep the spell going instead, so as to continue benefiting from the cold damage it delivers.

[Man_Over_Game]

One common solution players have resorted to when trying to extend Armor of Agathys is relying on some means of damage mitigation. This could be through Heavy Armor Master, Warding Bond, or often a single level of Barbarian (due to the fact that AoA doesn't use Concentration and can be maintained while Raging).

[sophontteks]

One common solution players have resorted to when trying to extend Armor of Agathys is relying on some means of damage mitigation. This could be through Heavy Armor Master, Warding Bond, or often a single level of Barbarian (due to the fact that AoA doesn't use Concentration and can be maintained while Raging).
All great options. I'd add Blade ward and most infamously arcane ward.

Blade Ward actually has a purpose, still niche, but if swarmed it could really work well with AoA.

Arcane ward stacks with AoA temp hp, thought this ridiculously awesome combo is more for wizards taking a dip or magic initiate rather then the other way around.

[MThurston]

Blade word is a one action spell that lasts 1 round.

Takes away an attack.

[sophontteks]

Blade word is a one action spell that lasts 1 round.

Takes away an attack.
It takes away an action.

Its also dirt cheap, practically free. There could be niche situations where giving up an attack to do 10-15 damage to multiple targets is favorable. Think of it as an improved dodge action.

[Kadesh]

The thing to bear in mind is that AoA is a defensive measure, usually, rather than a weapon. It stops you from taking damage from your hit points, so, effectivelyand functionally a Healing Spell, while also making you more uninviting to hit due to causing a creature to be penalised for hitting you. It works best in this way when paired with a way of further discouraging creatures to hit you, so improving your AC, so that it not only is hard to hit you, but on the rare times when they do, they take damage.

If you want to weaponise it, there are a few ways: Draconic Cold Sorcerer can add +Cha to Cold Damage. Hexblade Curse can potentially cause a creature to take +Prof while Cursed. You are going to want the least possible AC: as you want it to trigger as much as possible, but not have it wasted. Elemental Adept let's you hurt those resistant to Cold Damage.

You are going to want to have some means of encouraging them to attack you. Aside from just being up in front of an enemy immediately, you can usually encourage them to hit you by you hurting them. I quite like Booming Blade on a Sorcerer: you move in, attack, deal reasonably heavy damage, jump back out, provoking an opportunity attack and either dealing more damage, or making them take damage when they move to you and then take damage if they hit. It's a nice combo that can deal some pretty horrific damage at level 11, when you deal 3d8 on a hit, and 4d8 when they chase, followed by 31 when they hit you.

A modicum of AC comes in helpful here, but mitigating the amount of damage you take is always helpful. As a Sorcerer, Quickened Blade Ward allows you to both make your action, and still maintain defenses when you need to (at the expense of your daily resources).

I quite like the following frame: Human for Heavy Armour Master and 16 Cha, Fighter 1 with Duelling /Hexblade 1 for AoA and Curse/Silver or White Dragon Sorc 9 for Capping AoA and easy burn Sorcery Points. Pick up Heavy Armour Master and

From there, you can add Fighter +1, for action Surge, Warlock +2 for Warlock 2nds, Super Darkvision, and another utility based on party needs, and Sorcerer all the way for extra spell levels to power AoA and Sorc Points to Quicken stuff with.

Pick up a suit of Ring Mail. Only AC14 without a Dex Bonus, but requires no Str, and you use Cha to hit. It's ideal to have an on the whole lower AC than the rest of the party, so if you've got a 60ft distant AC19 Rogue or AC30 Eldrtitch Knight alongside you, feel free to take a look for more armour. If you have a Cleric in the party, consider paying for a Ring of Spell Storing and/or a Pearl of Power so that they can continue to cast additional spells.

You take the damage mitigation from HAM before Resistance, so you effectively have 50Temp HP, +1 for every hit you take.

Your Concentration Spells are left open as is your reaction: Shield and Ranged Attack warding spells are ideal, as it allows you to stop yourself from losing your Temp HP to ranged spells.

[Misterwhisper]

The thing to bear in mind is that AoA is a defensive measure, usually, rather than a weapon. It stops you from taking damage from your hit points, so, effectivelyand functionally a Healing Spell, while also making you more uninviting to hit due to causing a creature to be penalised for hitting you. It works best in this way when paired with a way of further discouraging creatures to hit you, so improving your AC, so that it not only is hard to hit you, but on the rare times when they do, they take damage.

If you want to weaponise it, there are a few ways: Draconic Cold Sorcerer can add +Cha to Cold Damage. Hexblade Curse can potentially cause a creature to take +Prof while Cursed. You are going to want the least possible AC: as you want it to trigger as much as possible, but not have it wasted. Elemental Adept let's you hurt those resistant to Cold Damage.

You are going to want to have some means of encouraging them to attack you. Aside from just being up in front of an enemy immediately, you can usually encourage them to hit you by you hurting them. I quite like Booming Blade on a Sorcerer: you move in, attack, deal reasonably heavy damage, jump back out, provoking an opportunity attack and either dealing more damage, or making them take damage when they move to you and then take damage if they hit. It's a nice combo that can deal some pretty horrific damage at level 11, when you deal 3d8 on a hit, and 4d8 when they chase, followed by 31 when they hit you.

A modicum of AC comes in helpful here, but mitigating the amount of damage you take is always helpful. As a Sorcerer, Quickened Blade Ward allows you to both make your action, and still maintain defenses when you need to (at the expense of your daily resources).

I quite like the following frame: Human for Heavy Armour Master and 16 Cha, Fighter 1 with Duelling /Hexblade 1 for AoA and Curse/Silver or White Dragon Sorc 9 for Capping AoA and easy burn Sorcery Points. Pick up Heavy Armour Master and

From there, you can add Fighter +1, for action Surge, Warlock +2 for Warlock 2nds, Super Darkvision, and another utility based on party needs, and Sorcerer all the way for extra spell levels to power AoA and Sorc Points to Quicken stuff with.

Pick up a suit of Ring Mail. Only AC14 without a Dex Bonus, but requires no Str, and you use Cha to hit. It's ideal to have an on the whole lower AC than the rest of the party, so if you've got a 60ft distant AC19 Rogue or AC30 Eldrtitch Knight alongside you, feel free to take a look for more armour. If you have a Cleric in the party, consider paying for a Ring of Spell Storing and/or a Pearl of Power so that they can continue to cast additional spells.

You take the damage mitigation from HAM before Resistance, so you effectively have 50Temp HP, +1 for every hit you take.

Your Concentration Spells are left open as is your reaction: Shield and Ranged Attack warding spells are ideal, as it allows you to stop yourself from losing your Temp HP to ranged spells.

I have used it right the opposite.

Warlocks other than hexblades have trouble getting good ac.

So don’t bother, armor of Agatha’s and fiendish rebuke make you very dangerous to hit.

If combined with arcane ward from wizard it is even more of an offensive weapon.

You want them to hit you, but you don’t want to take much damage.

They swing and hit:
They take damage from your armor of Agathys
Your arcane ward soaks what damage it can.
AoA take the rest of any is left.

This is especially deadly against large numbers of melee minion.

It is where I came to a question not in raw?

Can I choose to not gain the ac from a shield or to defend badly and give the enemy advantage?

AoA only works on melee, so could I stand there and not use my shield and give the enemy advantage to hit me with a sword or spear but if archers target me, I use all my defense?

[MThurston]

I am currently 5th level hexblade and do not plan on multi classing.

I have a breast plate and a +1 shield.

We have a Barbarian and a Cleric that do come forward.

I tend to be the tip if the spear. AoA would give me some free HPs and some damage for hitting me.

One fighter level with protection as the fighting style is tempting.

[Kadesh]

I have used it right the opposite.

Warlocks other than hexblades have trouble getting good ac.

So don’t bother, armor of Agatha’s and fiendish rebuke make you very dangerous to hit.

If combined with arcane ward from wizard it is even more of an offensive weapon.

You want them to hit you, but you don’t want to take much damage.

They swing and hit:
They take damage from your armor of Agathys
Your arcane ward soaks what damage it can.
AoA take the rest of any is left.

This is especially deadly against large numbers of melee minion.

It is where I came to a question not in raw?

Can I choose to not gain the ac from a shield or to defend badly and give the enemy advantage?

AoA only works on melee, so could I stand there and not use my shield and give the enemy advantage to hit me with a sword or spear but if archers target me, I use all my defense?

Slow down, and think about what you're trying to say. Perhaps read my post again while you do so, if that helps clarify what you think is opposite.

[Talionis]

People always think you should hurt your AC when you have AoA active and this is dead wrong.

Unless you have Heavy Armor Mastery feat and getting hit by a bunch of bees, you still want opponents to miss you.

Every time they miss you they waste an attack. It doesn’t drain any AoA temporary hit points and presumably that round you had a chance to do damage some other way. So long as you do any damage on average and aren’t solely relying on AoA damage you are always better off when opponents miss you because of AC.

[Trampaige]

If you want to weaponise it, there are a few ways: Draconic Cold Sorcerer can add +Cha to Cold Damage. Hexblade Curse can potentially cause a creature to take +Prof while Cursed. You are going to want the least possible AC: as you want it to trigger as much as possible, but not have it wasted. Elemental Adept let's you hurt those resistant to Cold Damage.


Draconic sorc and curse only add damage to damage rolls, and AoA isn't a damage roll.

[Kadesh]

Draconic sorc and curse only add damage to damage rolls, and AoA isn't a damage roll.

Do you have a source for that ruling, please. All damage according to the PHB is a damage roll.

[Kadesh]

People always think you should hurt your AC when you have AoA active and this is dead wrong.

Unless you have Heavy Armor Mastery feat and getting hit by a bunch of bees, you still want opponents to miss you.

Every time they miss you they waste an attack. It doesn’t drain any AoA temporary hit points and presumably that round you had a chance to do damage some other way. So long as you do any damage on average and aren’t solely relying on AoA damage you are always better off when opponents miss you because of AC.

It depends what you want from it. If you want to weaponise it, there's little point in having AoA never trigger because you have AC30. If you want to further discourage people from hitting you, then sure, stack your Disadvantages, Mirror Image, Distance, AC, and Illusions. You're going to want to be able to pick and choose what attacks you want to stop; the enemy assassin's sneak attack, the giant's club which would otherwise wipe it out, etc, which is why you have stuff like Conditional AC boosts for Shield, or Defensive Duellist, or whatever it's called.

You should always be doing damage in any case to encourage them to attack you, otherwise you are left with the age old issue of the Tank who can't be hit not doing their job because they are so difficult to hit.

[JackPhoenix]

Do you have a source for that ruling, please. All damage according to the PHB is a damage roll.

It's not a damage roll because there's no roll involved, it's a flat number.

[Kadesh]

It's not a damage roll because there's no roll involved, it's a flat number.

Please provide a the page reference of the rule that says that this new term, "flat number" Damage is not a Damage roll.

[RSP]

Please provide a the page reference of the rule that says that this new term, "flat number" Damage is not a Damage roll.

It’s in the Hexblades Curse feature:

“You gain a bonus to damage rolls against the cursed target. The bonus equals your proficiency bonus.”

A “damage roll” requires rolling dice to determine damage; whereas “10 cold damage” from AoA doesn’t require a roll.

It’s not “a ruling” it’s just a proper reading of the rules.

Edit: compare AoA to Shadow of Moil which has a damage roll on its retributive damage (2d8). SoM would get the +prof to damage because it involves a roll.

[tieren]

It is where I came to a question not in raw?

Can I choose to not gain the ac from a shield or to defend badly and give the enemy advantage?

AoA only works on melee, so could I stand there and not use my shield and give the enemy advantage to hit me with a sword or spear but if archers target me, I use all my defense?

Just drop prone, advantage to melee attackers, disadvantage to ranged attackers.

[Kadesh]

It’s in the Hexblades Curse feature:

“You gain a bonus to damage rolls against the cursed target. The bonus equals your proficiency bonus.”

A “damage roll” requires rolling dice to determine damage; whereas “10 cold damage” from AoA doesn’t require a roll.

It’s not “a ruling” it’s just a proper reading of the rules.

Edit: compare AoA to Shadow of Moil which has a damage roll on its retributive damage (2d8). SoM would get the +prof to damage because it involves a roll.

All damage according to the PHB is defined as a damage roll. That's the point you're missing.

[Trampaige]

All damage according to the PHB is defined as a damage roll. That's the point you're missing.


D a m a g e R o l l s
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
your target. Magic weapons, special abilities, and other
factors can grant a bonus to damage.

In this case, the spell specifies that it deals damage without a roll.

If you really want to split hairs and be pedantic about it because the header for the paragraph is "damage rolls", because you aren't performing the rolling damage dice part of the equation, you can't follow the next step which is add modifiers.

[RSP]

All damage according to the PHB is defined as a damage roll. That's the point you're missing.

Not true (and technically the onus is on you to cite said rule if you’re making that claim, but I don’t mind going through the RAW process). Start at “Making an Attack”, in the Combat section, and note the third step:

“3. Resolve the attack.
You make the attack roll. On a hit,
you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage.”

This is where we see the “damage roll” come in, that is, on an attack that hits.

Then move to the next relevant part of the rules:

“Damage Rolls
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 your target. Magic weapons, special abilities, and other factors can grant a bonus to damage.
When attacking with a weapon, you add your ability modifier—the same modifier used for the attack roll—to the damage. A spell tells you which dice to roll for damage and whether to add any modifiers.”

Let’s break that down.

First off, if you really want to, you can start at the beginning of the PHB: “Game Dice” to understand “rolls” (“When you need to roll dice, the rules tell you how many dice to roll of a certain type, as well as what modifiers to add“), but basic English also tells us how to interpret “rolls” in regards to the game: you roll dice.

So the term “Damage Rolls” needs to be taken with the above understood.

Now, the first line of Damage Rolls states “Each weapon, spell, and harmful monster ability specifies the damage it deals.” True statement. For example AoA deals 5 Cold damage per spell level of casting: the spell tells us the damage it deals. (As AoA doesn’t deal with rolling dice, we can stop there, but you’ll want to continue for how to proceed with damage that does involve dice rolling.)

The second line “You roll the damage die or dice, add any modifiers, and apply the damage to your target.” So when we have damage that involves dice, we follow this process. (Note that AoA damage is not rolling dice or a modifier, so this process cannot be used).

Next line: “Magic weapons, special abilities, and other factors can grant a bonus to damage.” True (keep in mind AoA is not “bonus damage”), and Hex is a good example here: it adds +1d6 to the damage roll.

The next paragraph isn’t relative to AoA at all:
“When attacking with a weapon, you add your ability modifier—the same modifier used for the attack roll—to the damage. A spell tells you which dice to roll for damage and whether to add any modifiers.” AoA isn’t a weapon, so no need to use the first sentence; and the spell doesn’t tell us to roll any dice, so we can ignore the second.

[Kadesh]

The only mention of how you take damage in the PHB is that it is a damage roll. And no, the onus is on you to tell me where there are two kinds of damage - those which are damage rolls, and those which are flat damage. Tell me the part of the rules which says words to the effect that Flat Damage (a term that the community has come up with) is not a Damage Roll, when every references to how to apply damage considers damage to be a damage roll.

[Man_Over_Game]

The only mention of how you take damage in the PHB is that it is a damage roll. And no, the onus is on you to tell me where there are two kinds of damage - those which are damage rolls, and those which are flat damage. Tell me the part of the rules which says words to the effect that Flat Damage (a term that the community has come up with) is not a Damage Roll, when every references to how to apply damage considers damage to be a damage roll.

Proving something doesn't exist isn't how science works.

Now, we can pick apart the Damage Rolls rules to determine whether or not a diceless damage source is considered a damage roll.


You roll the damage die or dice, add any modifiers, and apply the damage to your target. Magic weapons, special abilities, and other factors can grant a bonus to damage.

If we assume this is actually a list of requirements, and highlight any optional bits, this is what we come to:

You roll the damage die or dice, add any modifiers, and apply the damage to your target. Magic weapons, special abilities, and other factors can grant a bonus to damage.
(Underline representing optional factors, bold representing why those factors are optional.)

Now lets remove the optional stuff: "You roll the damage die or dice [...] and apply the damage to your target."

That seems to be the bare minimum for the Damage Roll rules to be considered.

As mentioned in Sage Advice, even something like a diceless Unarmed Strike doesn't benefit from a Critical Hit (due to not rolling any dice). It seems that diceless Unarmed Strikes are also not considered Damage Rolls. This can seem a bit odd (and generally isn't an issue in most instances), but that's what DM's are for.

[RSP]

The only mention of how you take damage in the PHB is that it is a damage roll. And no, the onus is on you to tell me where there are two kinds of damage - those which are damage rolls, and those which are flat damage. Tell me the part of the rules which says words to the effect that Flat Damage (a term that the community has come up with) is not a Damage Roll, when every references to how to apply damage considers damage to be a damage roll.

I did, in my prior post. And you made the statement: “All damage according to the PHB is defined as a damage roll,” so, yes, the onus is on you to back it up.

[Kadesh]

Proving something doesn't exist isn't how science works.

Now, we can pick apart the Damage Rolls rules to determine whether or not a diceless damage source is considered a damage roll.



If we assume this is actually a list of requirements, and highlight any optional bits, this is what we come to:

You roll the damage die or dice, add any modifiers, and apply the damage to your target. Magic weapons, special abilities, and other factors can grant a bonus to damage.
(Underline representing optional factors, bold representing why those factors are optional.)

Now lets remove the optional stuff: "You roll the damage die or dice [...] and apply the damage to your target."

That seems to be the bare minimum for the Damage Roll rules to be considered.

As mentioned in Sage Advice, even something like a diceless Unarmed Strike doesn't benefit from a Critical Hit (due to not rolling any dice). It seems that diceless Unarmed Strikes are also not considered Damage Rolls. This can seem a bit odd (and generally isn't an issue in most instances), but that's what DM's are for.

So Armor of Agathys doesn't actually deal any damage, because you don't actually roll a dice, and the rules only make provision for rolling a dice to deal damage. Gotcha, fantastic argument. Well Proven.


I did, in my prior post. And you made the statement: “All damage according to the PHB is defined as a damage roll,” so, yes, the onus is on you to back it up.
You've already done me the honours of finding the part about how to apply damage, and that it's a damage roll.

[RSP]

So Armor of Agathys doesn't actually deal any damage, because you don't actually roll a dice, and the rules only make provision for rolling a dice to deal damage. Gotcha, fantastic argument. Well Proven.


You've already done me the honours of finding the part about how to apply damage, and that it's a damage roll.

I think you’re missing a lot of the rules in your comprehension of how damage works in 5e, but if you want to ignore the RAW, I don’t think anyone not at your table will seriously mind.

[MThurston]

GFB does Stat mod damage from Level 1 - 4.

[Kadesh]

I think you’re missing a lot of the rules in your comprehension of how damage works in 5e, but if you want to ignore the RAW, I don’t think anyone not at your table will seriously mind.
"hey, he disagrees with me, he must be wrong"
- Guy who can't back up his houserule

Okay mate.

[RSP]

"hey, he disagrees with me, he must be wrong"
- Guy who can't back up his houserule

Okay mate.

Not true (and technically the onus is on you to cite said rule if you’re making that claim, but I don’t mind going through the RAW process). Start at “Making an Attack”, in the Combat section, and note the third step:

“3. Resolve the attack.
You make the attack roll. On a hit,
you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage.”

This is where we see the “damage roll” come in, that is, on an attack that hits.

Then move to the next relevant part of the rules:

“Damage Rolls
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 your target. Magic weapons, special abilities, and other factors can grant a bonus to damage.
When attacking with a weapon, you add your ability modifier—the same modifier used for the attack roll—to the damage. A spell tells you which dice to roll for damage and whether to add any modifiers.”

Let’s break that down.

First off, if you really want to, you can start at the beginning of the PHB: “Game Dice” to understand “rolls” (“When you need to roll dice, the rules tell you how many dice to roll of a certain type, as well as what modifiers to add“), but basic English also tells us how to interpret “rolls” in regards to the game: you roll dice.

So the term “Damage Rolls” needs to be taken with the above understood.

Now, the first line of Damage Rolls states “Each weapon, spell, and harmful monster ability specifies the damage it deals.” True statement. For example AoA deals 5 Cold damage per spell level of casting: the spell tells us the damage it deals. (As AoA doesn’t deal with rolling dice, we can stop there, but you’ll want to continue for how to proceed with damage that does involve dice rolling.)

The second line “You roll the damage die or dice, add any modifiers, and apply the damage to your target.” So when we have damage that involves dice, we follow this process. (Note that AoA damage is not rolling dice or a modifier, so this process cannot be used).

Next line: “Magic weapons, special abilities, and other factors can grant a bonus to damage.” True (keep in mind AoA is not “bonus damage”), and Hex is a good example here: it adds +1d6 to the damage roll.

The next paragraph isn’t relative to AoA at all:
“When attacking with a weapon, you add your ability modifier—the same modifier used for the attack roll—to the damage. A spell tells you which dice to roll for damage and whether to add any modifiers.” AoA isn’t a weapon, so no need to use the first sentence; and the spell doesn’t tell us to roll any dice, so we can ignore the second.

[Trampaige]

This is the most bizarre hill to die on.

I'm fond of the part where we've both quoted rules at him repeatedly, and since what he's talking about doesn't exist and he can't quote anything to support himself, he just keeps going on and on like this.

This forum never really changes.

[Man_Over_Game]

@Kadesh, you do make some great points, so much so that I posted a question on RPG Stack Exchange for a more formal review on it: https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/141197/does-damage-from-something-like-armor-of-agathys-or-an-unarmed-strike-count-as

I agree that it does seem odd to consider "flat damage" as being exempt from the Damage Rolls section (which is the only real ruling that's applicable in this instance), but it also is a bit odd for something to be considered a "roll" without dice. Could go either way, I suppose.

No need for the hostility, though. We're all just rules lawyers at the mercy of JC's twitter account, same as you.

[Kadesh]

This is the most bizarre hill to die on.

I'm fond of the part where we've both quoted rules at him repeatedly, and since what he's talking about doesn't exist and he can't quote anything to support himself, he just keeps going on and on like this.

This forum never really changes.
I can quote pythagorean theorem too, and it would have as equal relevance as your arguments.


Not true (and technically the onus is on you to cite said rule if you’re making that claim, but I don’t mind going through the RAW process). Start at “Making an Attack”, in the Combat section, and note the third step:

“3. Resolve the attack.
You make the attack roll. On a hit,
you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage.”

This is where we see the “damage roll” come in, that is, on an attack that hits.

Then move to the next relevant part of the rules:

“Damage Rolls
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 your target. Magic weapons, special abilities, and other factors can grant a bonus to damage.
When attacking with a weapon, you add your ability modifier—the same modifier used for the attack roll—to the damage. A spell tells you which dice to roll for damage and whether to add any modifiers.”

Let’s break that down.

First off, if you really want to, you can start at the beginning of the PHB: “Game Dice” to understand “rolls” (“When you need to roll dice, the rules tell you how many dice to roll of a certain type, as well as what modifiers to add“), but basic English also tells us how to interpret “rolls” in regards to the game: you roll dice.

So the term “Damage Rolls” needs to be taken with the above understood.

Now, the first line of Damage Rolls states “Each weapon, spell, and harmful monster ability specifies the damage it deals.” True statement. For example AoA deals 5 Cold damage per spell level of casting: the spell tells us the damage it deals. (As AoA doesn’t deal with rolling dice, we can stop there, but you’ll want to continue for how to proceed with damage that does involve dice rolling.)

The second line “You roll the damage die or dice, add any modifiers, and apply the damage to your target.” So when we have damage that involves dice, we follow this process. (Note that AoA damage is not rolling dice or a modifier, so this process cannot be used).

Next line: “Magic weapons, special abilities, and other factors can grant a bonus to damage.” True (keep in mind AoA is not “bonus damage”), and Hex is a good example here: it adds +1d6 to the damage roll.

The next paragraph isn’t relative to AoA at all:
“When attacking with a weapon, you add your ability modifier—the same modifier used for the attack roll—to the damage. A spell tells you which dice to roll for damage and whether to add any modifiers.” AoA isn’t a weapon, so no need to use the first sentence; and the spell doesn’t tell us to roll any dice, so we can ignore the second.

And if it doesn't tell you to roll any damage dice, then you can quite happily stop reading from the damage roll subheading, and read from this mythical "flat damage" subheading you seem to think exists.

[Chronos]

Here's a cite that there's some damage that doesn't involve a damage roll: On page 215 of the Player's Handbook, left column, starting about halfway down the page, it describes a source of damage that isn't a damage roll.

[Kadesh]

Here's a cite that there's some damage that doesn't involve a damage roll: On page 215 of the Player's Handbook, left column, starting about halfway down the page, it describes a source of damage that isn't a damage roll.

Which does precisely nothing, because the Damage rules only ever say that Damage Rolls remove from hit points. Try to keep up.

[youtellatale]

Draconic sorc and curse only add damage to damage rolls, and AoA isn't a damage roll.

Also, the PHB errata says that you can only add the CHA modifier to 1 damage roll. So let's just say that you can add it to damage that isn't rolled. Well you can do it one time, but that's all. And that's actually written in the rules. As far as Hexblade's Curse I mean that's up for debate I suppose but I actually tend to side with those saying that flat damage IS a damage roll. When the PHB says "Each weapon, spell, and harmfull monster ability specifies the damage it deals." right underneath the heading called "Damage Rolls" it seems to roll up that way. So to me you'd be one use of the Elemental Affinity because that's what the errata says, and then use Hexblade's Curse whenever possible. It's not overpowered either way frankly. There is far more cheese than this out there. I think it's kinda cool actually.


(FYI as I read the PHB more and more here I felt myself switching sides, if you can't tell from my response)

[JackPhoenix]

Which does precisely nothing, because the Damage rules only ever say that Damage Rolls remove from hit points. Try to keep up.

Specific vs. general. General rule is that you'll roll a dice to see how much damage you've caused.

AoA specifically causes damage without rolling anything. Try to think.

[Kadesh]

Specific vs. general. General rule is that you'll roll a dice to see how much damage you've caused.

AoA specifically causes damage without rolling anything. Try to think.
Thereby, given that most damage is a damage roll, that exception also allows Draconic Sorcerer and Hexblade Curse to work. Or is that specific not allowed, but yours is? Sorry, you guys are turning yourselves inside and out, and I feel so bad for you.

Thunk harder again.

[JackPhoenix]

Thereby, given that most damage is a damage roll, that exception also allows Draconic Sorcerer and Hexblade Curse to work. Or is that specific not allowed, but yours is? Sorry, you guys are turning yourselves inside and out, and I feel so bad for you.

Thunk harder again.

What "specific"? Draconic sorcerer and Hexblade Curse specifically require damage roll to work. No roll, no extra damage. But don't worry, I understand that fact may be a little hard for you to grasp, no need to feel bad for me for having to explain it to you.

[Kadesh]

What "specific"? Draconic sorcerer and Hexblade Curse specifically require damage roll to work. No roll, no extra damage. But don't worry, I understand that fact may be a little hard for you to grasp, no need to feel bad for me for having to explain it to you.
To deal damage, you must roll damage. That is clear from the rules. If it's an exception to the normal damage rules that it deals damage without needing to roll, then that means that things which normally trigger on a damage roll (such as loss of Hit Points) take effect even though it's a flat damage roll. The same exception allows DS and HC to trigger.

Gotta love exceptions.

Or maybe you don't like logic?

[JackPhoenix]

To deal damage, you must roll damage. That is clear from the rules. If it's an exception to the normal damage rules that it deals damage without needing to roll, then that means that things which normally trigger on a damage roll (such as loss of Hit Points) take effect even though it's a flat damage roll. The same exception allows DS and HC to trigger.

Gotta love exceptions.

Or maybe you don't like logic?

I do like logic, but I don't think you understand what logic is.

The whole point of specific exception is that it works differently from general rule. General rule is that damage roll consists of rolling the appropriate damage di(c)e and then adding various modifiers and other features, like Hexblade Curse.
Specific exception (in the case of AoA) is that it causes set amount of damage, with no dice rolling involved. If it was also supposed to add any modifiers, like the general rules for damage rolls says, it would need to specifically say so, because by its very nature as an specific exception, it ignores the general rule.

[Kadesh]

Edit: had a rethink, I'll let you feel like you're right. Have a nice night.

[JackPhoenix]

Dunning Kruger is strong here.

Well, you've realized it, so it no longer applies.

[NaughtyTiger]

Oh no! Damage Rolls occurs under the combat heading.
Ergo you an only take damage during combat.

[bid]

To deal damage, you must roll damage.
Which is not the same as to take damage.

If you can't be constructive, don't bother.

[Kadesh]

Which is not the same as to take damage.

If you can't be constructive, don't bother.

Provide source for how to take damage without rolli g for it. Sorry, the rules don't work the way you want them to just because you think they're not helpful. Wind your next in too, by the way.

[NaughtyTiger]

Provide source for how to take damage without rolli g for it. Sorry, the rules don't work the way you want them to just because you think they're not helpful. Wind your next in too, by the way.

as you point out, the only way to take damage is the section Damage Rolls.
but this section occurs under the heading Combat.

provide a source for how to take damage from a trap, a fall, a glyph of warding outside of combat.
either you can't take damage, or the rules are crappy

[MThurston]

To deal damage, you must roll damage. That is clear from the rules. If it's an exception to the normal damage rules that it deals damage without needing to roll, then that means that things which normally trigger on a damage roll (such as loss of Hit Points) take effect even though it's a flat damage roll. The same exception allows DS and HC to trigger.

Gotta love exceptions.

Or maybe you don't like logic?

I think it would be childish to tell someone that at level 1-4, the GFB does not trigger Hex if the extra target is by the flames.

[Malifice]

Guys chill.

Its not that big a deal.

[Kadesh]

as you point out, the only way to take damage is the section Damage Rolls.
but this section occurs under the heading Combat.

provide a source for how to take damage from a trap, a fall, a glyph of warding outside of combat.
either you can't take damage, or the rules are crappy
Was it your intention to make a point that proves my point that 'RAW' is a useless basis to fall back on? Like the original poster tried to do?

Or is it more likely that that AoA is also as badly written like everything else WotC has produced and that the assumption that all damage is a roll is expected, and therefore something that effects it.

[noob]

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 your target. Magic weapons, special abilities, and other factors can grant a bonus to damage.
So for any spell you roll the legendary damage dice no matter what.
So when you cast sleep or mage armor or expeditious retreat you roll the damage dice.
It is just that the damage is not inflicted to the opponent but you still roll the unique dice called "the damage die or dice"
All the spells specifies the damage it deals but even when it does not deals damage you roll a damage dice.

[Kadesh]

So for any spell you roll the legendary damage dice no matter what.
So when you cast sleep or mage armor or expeditious retreat you roll the damage dice.
It is just that the damage is not inflicted to the opponent but you still roll the unique dice called "the damage die or dice"
All the spells specifies the damage it deals but even when it does not deals damage you roll a damage dice.
How can you quote the rules and then immediately post yourself wrong?

[MaXenzie]

Just an FYI, unarmed attacks don't have a damage roll and thus do not benefit from critical hits RAW.

Which means AoA (which deals flat damage, identically to unarmed attacks) would not benefit from any bonus to a damage roll.

[Kadesh]

Just an FYI, unarmed attacks don't have a damage roll and thus do not benefit from critical hits RAW.

Which means AoA (which deals flat damage, identically to unarmed attacks) would not benefit from any bonus to a damage roll.
Thanks for weighing MaXenzie - out of interest, do you have a source for that RAW?

[noob]

How can you quote the rules and then immediately post yourself wrong?

The rule did not say you had to roll the damage dice only if the spell dealt damage and the enumeration of things that triggers the rule includes all the spells.
So when you cast a spell you roll a damage dice not that it would do anything but you have to roll it.
If they said "harmful X or y or Z" with y being spells the rule would not be disfunctional but it said "Each weapon, spell, and harmful monster ability specifies the damage it deals. You roll the damage die or dice"
So each weapon, each spell and each harmful monster ability specifies the damage it deals (for example it specifies it does deals _ damage by writing nothing about damage) and you have to roll the damage dice because they did not specify the spells or weapons triggering the rule had to be harmful (they could have by saying "each harmful weapon or spell or monster ability" but they did not: they used the words in the wrong order).

[Kadesh]

The rule did not say you had to roll the damage dice only if the spell dealt damage and the enumeration of things that triggers the rule includes all the spells.
So when you cast a spell you roll a damage dice not that it would do anything but you have to roll it.
If they said "harmful X or y or Z" with y being spells the rule would not be disfunctional but it said "Each weapon, spell, and harmful monster ability specifies the damage it deals. You roll the damage die or dice"
So each weapon, each spell and each harmful monster ability specifies the damage it deals (for example it specifies it does deals _ damage by writing nothing about damage) and you have to roll the damage dice because they did not specify the spells or weapons triggering the rule had to be harmful (they could have by saying "each harmful weapon or spell or monster ability" but they did not: they used the words in the wrong order).

1st sentence of the bit you quoted. :) Come on, now.

[RSP]

So, Kadish, if you’re correct, “Damage Roll” is actually a game term that means “any time you take damage” right?

Then how come there’s this:

“3. Resolve the attack.
You make the attack roll. On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise.”

First off, note the common English “roll damage” not the aforementioned “Damage Roll,” which strongly indicates Damage Roll isn’t a game term; it’s same reason you don’t see “points of hit” to refer to HPs (an actual game term), or “class of armor” to refer to AC.

Secondly, the part I bolded clearly says you roll damage for an attack unless told otherwise. The “otherwise” is what we’re discussing with things like unarmed attacks: it’s not a damage roll (or Damage Roll), it’s something else.

Likewise, under your favorite rules section, Damage Rolls, we’re told “Each weapon, spell, and harmful monster ability speci- fies the damage it deals.” AoA tells us the damage it deals, and it doesn’t require a roll.

And again, look at the rules of the game: “When you need to roll dice, the rules tell you how many dice to roll of a certain type, as well as what modifiers to add. For example, “3d8 + 5” means you roll three eight- sided dice, add them together, and add 5 to the total.”

So here we see that dice roll=XdY. No XdY, no dice roll.

In the case of AoA, since there is no XdY there’s no roll, so it’s not a “damage roll,” it’s just “damage.”

[Kadesh]

You still have nothing more to support your concept of the rules than inference. Thereby completely voiding any argument made towards it being "RAW" though. How are you not able to understand this. If it was "RAW", then there would be a rule written down. But... there isn't. And you're unable to support your position other than through conjecture and application of common sense (said RAW allowing someone to fall from an arbitrarily high height that would common sensibly be instant death, and survive, thereby voiding any possible thoughts you could have of common sense being equally applicable to all rules, and only the face value of what is written being valid).

Until you can provide me a rule that is written that flat damage is explicitly different to the way damage is handled, you are completely incapable of supporting your argument.

[n00b]

Here's where Crawford indicates unarmed strike is just flat damage and not a roll since it does 1 + Str mod even on a crit. Hence static damage and not rolled.

https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/736085559597096960?s=21&fbclid=IwAR34KHiEJUvERz6aHBjd1e5mBN1aFkJhHcD5TC7bt T9rqmwpOgSj3qao0f4

[RSP]

Until you can provide me a rule that is written that flat damage is explicitly different to the way damage is handled, you are completely incapable of supporting your argument.

I’ve not using the term “flat damage” so I’m not sure why you expect me to prove this term exists in the RAW. There is “damage,” and there is determining what that damage is by either a) rolling a prescribed die or set of dice and adding together the totals, or b) going by the description of an attack, spell or other effect that states a specific amount of damage.

I’ve shown you where the rules describe rolling dice and what that means in the game.

I’ve shown where the rules discuss rolling dice to determine damage.

I’ve shown you where the rules discuss using a description of an effect to determine damage.

I’ve repeatedly supported my argument with quotes from the RAW; you choosing to ignore that doesn’t make it not true.

You on the other hand, have done nothing to support your argument other than discount the valid evidence shown to you.

[Kadesh]

I’ve not using the term “flat damage” so I’m not sure why you expect me to prove this term exists in the RAW. There is “damage,” and there is determining what that damage is by either a) rolling a prescribed die or set of dice and adding together the totals, or b) going by the description of an attack, spell or other effect that states a specific amount of damage.

I’ve shown you where the rules describe rolling dice and what that means in the game.

I’ve shown where the rules discuss rolling dice to determine damage.

I’ve shown you where the rules discuss using a description of an effect to determine damage.

I’ve repeatedly supported my argument with quotes from the RAW; you choosing to ignore that doesn’t make it not true.

You on the other hand, have done nothing to support your argument other than discount the valid evidence shown to you.
I have actually asked you to source the rule that is claimed to be RAW. If it's "rules as written", then there'll be a rule to support that.

If I say "I roll a D20 to make an attack roll", I can provide you with rules for that. If you say "it's not a damage roll, so doesn't count", then you should be able to provide a page number which states what this supposed "Rule as written" says. But you cannot, and say I cannot back up my source (outside of the one which says spells dealing damage are a damage roll), when I've never wavered.

It usually helps to have a "rules as written" argument supported by the rules actually being written. And it's been fun proving that to you.


Here's where Crawford indicates unarmed strike is just flat damage and not a roll since it does 1 + Str mod even on a crit. Hence static damage and not rolled.

https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/736085559597096960?s=21&fbclid=IwAR34KHiEJUvERz6aHBjd1e5mBN1aFkJhHcD5TC7bt T9rqmwpOgSj3qao0f4
Excellent. Good to know that when I'm discussing unarmed strikes and critical hits.

[n00b]

Excellent. Good to know that when I'm discussing unarmed strikes and critical hits.

You asked for the source and it was given. Unlike people asking you for your citations instead of a really bad interpretation of what words don't mean. And it proves the point that there is such a thing as "flat damage" and it isn't considered a "roll."

[Kadesh]

You asked for the source and it was given. Unlike people asking you for your citations instead of a really bad interpretation of what words don't mean. And it proves the point that there is such a thing as "flat damage" and it isn't considered a "roll."

Not really. It proves that Unarmed Strikes do that specific effect under a critical hit. You know, an exception to the rule, that has been explicitly stated. Unlike the case of AoA where you're asking me to infer rather than providing me with an actual quote that this flat damage is an actual rule.

You: 'This is Raw'
Me: 'prove it'
You: 'well if you infer...'

Seriously. Did none of you debate?

[stoutstien]

Not really. It proves that Unarmed Strikes do that specific effect under a critical hit. You know, an exception to the rule, that has been explicitly stated. Unlike the case of AoA where you're asking me to infer rather than providing me with an actual quote that this flat damage is an actual rule.

You: 'This is Raw'
Me: 'prove it'
You: 'well if you infer...'

Seriously. Did none of you debate?

So your defense for your statement as the word rolling does not actually mean you have to roll?
Wouldn't it be more logical or to be under "other factors" seeing how it is actually a damage modifier not a damage roll.

now I can see that it's not unbalanced to allow that extra damage on a flat modifier it hardly breaks the game.
if a warlock wants to squeeze out an extra five damage every time they get smacked in the head like a masochist who am I to complain.
AoA only really becomes usefull after you upcast it with a lv 3 slot+. Before that it really gets wiped out with one hit.

[NaughtyTiger]

Was it your intention to make a point that proves my point that 'RAW' is a useless basis to fall back on? Like the original poster tried to do?

Or is it more likely that that AoA is also as badly written like everything else WotC has produced and that the assumption that all damage is a roll is expected, and therefore something that effects it.

Oh, your point was the RAW doesn't make sense.

that was unclear, because you forcefully seemed to argue that all damage is Damage Rolls...
your guile and sarcasm was so well crafted that i thought you actually believed it.

but since you are now clearly saying that RAW is useless, you can agree AoA doesn't count as a Damage Roll, thus draconic sorc and hexblades curse don't apply.

thank goodness, this thread is over...
Kadesh doesn't believe that

All damage according to the PHB is a damage roll. is a useful stance.

[Kadesh]

(But it is)

[NaughtyTiger]

(But it is)

You are trying to have it both ways.

You literally claim that "All damage is Damage Roll" per PHB and demand rules that say otherwise,
but when I point out that Damage Rolls only occur in Combat per PHB you state that strict reading of PHB is "useless"

you are arguing the PHB must by strictly read, and that a strict reading is useless. you are arguing for both sides of the discussion.

[Kadesh]

You are trying to have it both ways.

You literally claim that "All damage is Damage Roll" per PHB and demand rules that say otherwise,
but when I point out that Damage Rolls only occur in Combat per PHB you state that strict reading of PHB is "useless"

you are arguing the PHB must by strictly read, and that a strict reading is useless. literally both sides of the argument.

Didn't you ever debate?

Not really trying to have it both ways. Simply, and actually making a RAW statement, but also making the same logical understanding that taking RAW as RAW makes it no functional.

And rather than assuming that 'RAW is RAW apart from when you are inferring things you want to while ignoring other bits of RAW', along with the rest of the typing errors, wording errors, lack of emphasis, conciseness and simultaneously depth, the logical assumption I come to is that it's more likely that AoA is just written poorly.

[NaughtyTiger]

Not really trying to have it both ways. Simply, and actually making a RAW statement, but also making the same logical understanding that taking RAW as RAW makes it no functional.

Not trying to have it both ways?
you just said you were:

making a RAW statement (and telling people they are wrong for disagreeing)
discounting a RAW statement cuz RAW makes no sense


Next you state the "assumption I come to is that it's more likely that AoA is just written poorly" because it conflicts with RAW that doesn't make sense.

If you are being sincere, then I do not follow your logic, because your arguments are self-conflicting. At this point, it is not clear what your original current thesis is.

My problem is not that you believe that Elemental Affinity and Hexblade's Curse do apply to Armor of Agythus. That is a reasonable position.
My problem is that you declared it the correct position by a strict reading of the PHB, but ignore that a similarly strict reading means damage only occurs during Combat. Your argument is inconsistent.

[Kadesh]

Not trying to have it both ways?
you just said you were:

making a RAW statement (and telling people they are wrong for disagreeing)
discounting a RAW statement cuz RAW makes no sense


Next you state the "assumption I come to is that it's more likely that AoA is just written poorly" because it conflicts with RAW that doesn't make sense.

If you are being sincere, then I do not follow your logic, because your arguments are self-conflicting. At this point, it is not clear what your original current thesis is.

My problem is not that you believe that Elemental Affinity and Hexblade's Curse do apply to Armor of Agythus. That is a reasonable position.
My problem is that you declared it the correct position by a strict reading of the PHB, but ignore that a similarly strict reading means damage only occurs during Combat. Your argument is inconsistent.

Oh okay. So what happens now? Given that both arguments are correct?

[n00b]

Seriously. Did none of you debate?

Actually no, I didn't. Although with my apparently limited understanding I thought a debate was about a topic that was actually in doubt? (Could be wrong about that definition though.) Opinions and actual proof have been given to you and so far your defense has been insults, declarations that words don't really mean what they mean, and the ever so popular "nuh-uh." So I don't really see this as a debate honestly.

[Talionis]

How did this get so derailed. Elemental Affinity only talks about spells that do damage. There is no mention of Dice in Elemental Affinity for Sorcerers. AoA does cold damage. Even though you don’t roll damage, I see no reason that Elemental Affinity wouldn’t apply to AoA.

It’s the language of Elemental Affinity that is important.

[JackPhoenix]

How did this get so derailed. Elemental Affinity only talks about spells that do damage. There is no mention of Dice in Elemental Affinity for Sorcerers. AoA does cold damage. Even though you don’t roll damage, I see no reason that Elemental Affinity wouldn’t apply to AoA.

It’s the language of Elemental Affinity that is important.

"Starting at 6th level, when you cast a spell that deals damage of the type associated with your draconic ancestry, you can add your Charisma modifier to one damage roll of that spell. At the same time, you can spend 1 sorcery point to gain resistance to that damage type for 1 hour."

Edit: not that it actually matters, as Armor of Agathys doesn't do damage when you cast it anyway.

[Talionis]

"Starting at 6th level, when you cast a spell that deals damage of the type associated with your draconic ancestry, you can add your Charisma modifier to one damage roll of that spell. At the same time, you can spend 1 sorcery point to gain resistance to that damage type for 1 hour."

Edit: not that it actually matters, as Armor of Agathys doesn't do damage when you cast it anyway.

My version says something different:

Elemental Affinity
Starting at 6th level, when you cast a spell that deals damage of the type associated with your draconic ancestry, add your Charisma modifier to that damage.

[Asmotherion]

From the Sage Advice Compendium:
That's a dump rule considering the 1 hour duration. if they intended it to function this way they should have made it instantaneous.

i always believed RAW allows new Temp HP sources to renew the spell as long as the duration wasn't over. Otherwise the Fiendish Vigor invocation becomes a complete waste of space.

[JackPhoenix]

My version says something different:

Elemental Affinity
Starting at 6th level, when you cast a spell that deals damage of the type associated with your draconic ancestry, add your Charisma modifier to that damage.

Then you have some old, pre-errata version of PHB.

[RSP]

That's a dump rule considering the 1 hour duration. if they intended it to function this way they should have made it instantaneous.

i always believed RAW allows new Temp HP sources to renew the spell as long as the duration wasn't over. Otherwise the Fiendish Vigor invocation becomes a complete waste of space.

RAW follows the intent in this case:

“You gain 5 temporary hit points for the duration. If a creature hits you with a melee attack while you have them, it takes 5 cold damage.”

“Them” clearly refers to the tHP you get from the spell.

Further, the PHB is pretty clear on tHPs and how they interact with other sources of tHPs:

“Healing can’t restore temporary hit points, and they can’t be added together. If you have temporary hit points and receive more of them, you decide whether to keep the ones you have or to gain the new ones. For example, if a spell grants you 12 temporary hit points when you already have 10, you can have 12 or 10, not 22.”

I’m not sure how you could read those two rules and conclude different sources of tHP combine, or “renew the spell;” they flat out say tHPs cannot be combined or restored.

Regarding Fiend’s Findish Vigor, I’m not sure why you think it needs to be synergistic with AoA: both are good features on their own and neither states anything regarding interacting with the other.

[Asmotherion]

RAW follows the intent in this case:

“You gain 5 temporary hit points for the duration. If a creature hits you with a melee attack while you have them, it takes 5 cold damage.”

“Them” clearly refers to the tHP you get from the spell.

Further, the PHB is pretty clear on tHPs and how they interact with other sources of tHPs:

“Healing can’t restore temporary hit points, and they can’t be added together. If you have temporary hit points and receive more of them, you decide whether to keep the ones you have or to gain the new ones. For example, if a spell grants you 12 temporary hit points when you already have 10, you can have 12 or 10, not 22.”

I’m not sure how you could read those two rules and conclude different sources of tHP combine, or “renew the spell;” they flat out say tHPs cannot be combined or restored.

Regarding Fiend’s Findish Vigor, I’m not sure why you think it needs to be synergistic with AoA: both are good features on their own and neither states anything regarding interacting with the other.

Did you really not get what i said or are you just pretending?

i never said anything about temporary hp "healing" or "adding up".

i'm saying that AoA should function reguardless of the source of the temporary HP as long as the Duration is ongoing. Otherwise there is no point of it having a duration in the first place.

And "them" could refear to Temporary Hp in general and not specifically to those you get from the spell. That's how i read it in the first place.

Finally Fiendish Vigor has no support mechanics when the spell is interpreated your way changing it from an amazing option to "just meh".

[stoutstien]

Fiendish vigor is it okay invocation for a low lv warlock that doesn't plan on using AoA. Since it's spamable you can pretty much read it as +8 thp. From level 2 to 5 that's quite a bump in survivability.
What's you level up a little bit you switch it out for something better. Kind of like the sleep spell.
Not to mention all the cheese for going wizard for arcane Ward refills.

[Asmotherion]

Fiendish vigor is it okay invocation for a low lv warlock that doesn't plan on using AoA. Since it's spamable you can pretty much read it as +8 thp. From level 2 to 5 that's quite a bump in survivability.
What's you level up a little bit you switch it out for something better. Kind of like the sleep spell.
Not to mention all the cheese for going wizard for arcane Ward refills.

You might as well not because it doesn't work. The ward specifically needs a spell of 1st level or higher to refill (for example AoA).

And between all the amazing invocations and the option of actually casting AoA to replace it it's pretty much meh even at that level of play.

[RSP]

Did you really not get what i said or are you just pretending?

Um, I don’t know how else to take “i always believed RAW allows new Temp HP sources to renew the spell as long as the duration wasn't over,” than as you saying how you believe AoA works according to the RAW, which is why I was quoting you the RAW that proves otherwise.



i'm saying that AoA should function reguardless of the source of the temporary HP as long as the Duration is ongoing. Otherwise there is no point of it having a duration in the first place.

I disagree. The spell is fine the way it is and the duration isn’t pointless: it allows for precasting and/or carrying over to multiple encounters.



And "them" could refear to Temporary Hp in general and not specifically to those you get from the spell. That's how i read it in the first place.

No, it can’t.



Finally Fiendish Vigor has no support mechanics when the spell is interpreated your way changing it from an amazing option to "just meh".

If you’re goal is to play with houserules to increase synergy between abilities, then, sure, enjoy!

But there is no specific need for any particular Invocations and spells to work together.

[stoutstien]

You might as well not because it doesn't work. The ward specifically needs a spell of 1st level or higher to refill (for example AoA).

And between all the amazing invocations and the option of actually casting AoA to replace it it's pretty much meh even at that level of play.
My bad on the ward I guess it doesn't work raw due to it being on spell slot not spell lv.
I think the problem with AoA at low-level is the limit of spell selection.
Lv 2 warlock has what 3 spells known?
Hex, arms of hadar, expeditious retreat,
or cause fear all great picks.
Like I said earlier AoA is better once you are casting it from a 3+ slot. It actually lasts longer than one strike.

[Asmotherion]

My bad on the ward I guess it doesn't work raw due to it being on spell slot not spell lv.
I think the problem with AoA at low-level is the limit of spell selection.
Lv 2 warlock has what 3 spells known?
Hex, arms of hadar, expeditious retreat,
or cause fear all great picks.
Like I said earlier AoA is better once you are casting it from a 3+ slot. It actually lasts longer than one strike.

Don't get me wrong. i still believe AoA is an amazing spell reguardless of needless alterations they made to it. it's just too bad for a cool synergy to play with but otherwise that's the end of my complain.

it's Fiendish Vigor i believe that has been reduced to a useless invocation if we follow the "new RAW".

[stoutstien]

Don't get me wrong. i still believe AoA is an amazing spell reguardless of needless alterations they made to it. it's just too bad for a cool synergy to play with but otherwise that's the end of my complain.

it's Fiendish Vigor i believe that has been reduced to a useless invocation if we follow the "new RAW".
I guess it depends on how much value +8 thp as an action has to you. (Or 1d4+4 per action until you get the max)
It's definitely not the best but a person could do worse.

[NaughtyTiger]

You might as well not because it doesn't work. The ward specifically needs a spell of 1st level or higher to refill (for example AoA).

And between all the amazing invocations and the option of actually casting AoA to replace it it's pretty much meh even at that level of play.

I think I am misreading what you meant.

Fiendish vigor does not replenish Arcane ward, because False Life is a necromancy spell.

Armor of shadows does replenish Arcane ward, because using Armor of shadows is casting a 1st level abjuration spell.


Additionally, the devs specifically did not intend other sources of temp HP to recharge AoA.
We know this because the Frost Giant Soul sorceror has specific language that allows it's class ability to recharge AoA.

[stoutstien]

I think I am misreading what you meant.

Fiendish vigor does not replenish Arcane ward, because False Life is a necromancy spell.

Armor of shadows does replenish Arcane ward, because using Armor of shadows is casting a 1st level abjuration spell.


Additionally, the devs specifically did not intend other sources of temp HP to recharge AoA.
We know this because the Frost Giant Soul sorceror has specific language that allows it's class ability to recharge AoA.
I was the one that got the false life and mage armor mixed up.

[Citan]

Do you have a source for that ruling, please. All damage according to the PHB is a damage roll.


All damage according to the PHB is defined as a damage roll. That's the point you're missing.


Thereby, given that most damage is a damage roll, that exception also allows Draconic Sorcerer and Hexblade Curse to work. Or is that specific not allowed, but yours is? Sorry, you guys are turning yourselves inside and out, and I feel so bad for you.

Thunk harder again.


To deal damage, you must roll damage. That is clear from the rules. If it's an exception to the normal damage rules that it deals damage without needing to roll, then that means that things which normally trigger on a damage roll (such as loss of Hit Points) take effect even though it's a flat damage roll. The same exception allows DS and HC to trigger.

Gotta love exceptions.

Or maybe you don't like logic?


Provide source for how to take damage without rolli g for it. Sorry, the rules don't work the way you want them to just because you think they're not helpful. Wind your next in too, by the way.
Okay.

You really have a big problem with logic on that point (sorry to be blunt -although I'm not the first one to tell you actually-).
So.

1. Damage does not necessarily needs a roll.

You will find MANY such examples in PHB and otherwise.
A few examples besides Armor of Agathys (which deals damage without even needing any roll, awesome right?)...
Storm Sorcerer: level 6 feature deals fixed (although scaling) thunder damage. Same with level 14 one.
Ancestral Barbarian, level 14: you deal the same amount of damage that your Spirit prevented (so, sure, you had a roll to negate damage, but that is orthogonal. Otherwise if you start saying "see there was a roll to preserve HP" I could piggyback on Armor of Agathys -flat reduction- or Goodberry -flat restoration-).
Storm Herald: reaction to deal flat damage.
Redemption Paladin: reaction to deal flat damage (although the exact one resultat from a preceding roll, yourself dont need to roll anything to deal that damage).
Oath of Conquest Paladin: level 15 feature, flat damage dealt to creatures hitting you.

So we have examples of flat damage from spells and archetype features alike, even though some are calculated from a preceding event that required a roll.
And I did not list all of them. Neither did I try including traps and other hazards, some of which dealing flat damage IIRC.
There is also the example of unarmed strikes which, without any proficiency, always only deal 1 damage.

Ergo, while the ultra majority of abilities are based on a roll to deal damage, rolling is not *required* unless specified, in other words, damage can exist without any roll. The game mechanics do not *need* rolls to work, WoTC just decided to do so for design reasons (notably, having everything deal flat damage would end as too predictable so boring for experienced players, plus randomness -as long as not over the top- is an engine for storytelling).

2. Armor of Agathys does not benefit of Draconic Ancestry neither Hexblade by RAW.
Those require a particular condition to be met, which is a damage roll.
The expression "Damage roll" must be understood in globality, as a different notion that its respective components "damage" and "roll" respectively.
Exactly like "melee spell attack" is an entire concept in itself, that allows some features or rules to apply to it (like getting advantage if target is prone, or getting Hexblade's "crit on 19" applied) while other would not (like Paladin's Improved Divine Smite who require melee weapon attacks).
Exactly like "weapon attacks" is an entire concept, related but independant from both "weapons" and "attacks", since...
- Anyone using fists to make attacks is still making "melee weapon attack" (reason why Monks can apply Stunning Fists) although they don't use actual weapons (like beasts).
- Whether you use fist, melee weapon or ranged weapon, or natural weapon, you are making a weapon attack, with just a subset of "ranged" or "melee".

Paladin's Divine Smite require "melee weapon attack" (so won't work on an attack made with a longbow).
Bless requires an attack roll or a check (so won't apply on a save).
Absorb Elements requires elemental damage (so cannot be used when receiving physical damage).
Armor of Agathys requires a "melee attack" to deal its damage so it works equally well if the enemy hit you with a maul (weapon) or a Shocking Grasp (spell) as long as its way of attacking you "qualifies as a melee attack". But won't hurt a guy attacking and hurting you from a distance.

See the pattern?
Some spells or features are *triggered* or *enabled* through a specific condition.
"Rolling for damage" is one such condition among many others.
Armor of Agathys inflicts damage without requiring its caster to roll any dice. Ergo, you cannot apply Hexblade or Draconic Ancestry to it because those two specifically require the character to make a roll for damage (even less so for the latter which "works" at the time you cast the spell, while AoA per essence will "work afterwards" unless you decide to Ready the cast on the turn when an enemy decides to attack you for some reason).

(Houseruling that you can is probably fine balance-wise and nice for your players per ROC, but it's still 100% a houserule nonetheless).

[noob]

so using maximize can reduce damage?

[Citan]

so using maximize can reduce damage?
...
Wait, what??!

Sorry, not sure if you were asking someone in particular, in any case myself didn't understand anything to your sentence. Pls detail. XD

[Boci]

...
Wait, what??!

Sorry, not sure if you were asking someone in particular, in any case myself didn't understand anything to your sentence. Pls detail. XD

I believe they are saying that using abilities to maximize a dice roll could now reduce damage, since it means a die wasn't rolled, and therefor certain damage bonuses are no longer aplicable. Like how 2d8+10 is on average higher then 16 (not sure if those numbers could ever be, it was just an example).

[stoutstien]

So would a class ablity like a tempest cleric maximizing damage prevent them from using a rider such as the dragon sorcerer elemental affinity?
The damage is no longer rolled so it no longer fits the criteria? or does the fact it's a maximize roll automatically still indicate that the damage is supposedly rolled?

[Rukelnikov]

So would a class ablity like a tempest cleric maximizing damage prevent them from using a rider such as the dragon sorcerer elemental affinity?
The damage is no longer rolled so it no longer fits the criteria? or does the fact it's a maximize roll automatically still indicate that the damage is supposedly rolled?

"When you roll lightning or thunder damage, you can use your Channel Divinity to deal maximum damage, instead of rolling."

No roll was made if you chose to maximise.

[Misterwhisper]

"When you roll lightning or thunder damage, you can use your Channel Divinity to deal maximum damage, instead of rolling."

No roll was made if you chose to maximise.

Same thing with overchannel and empowered evocation for wizards.

[stoutstien]

"When you roll lightning or thunder damage, you can use your Channel Divinity to deal maximum damage, instead of rolling."

No roll was made if you chose to maximise.
Just to double-check your saying no go on bonus damage as far RAW. Even if the channel states,.... when you roll, not before you roll.
This is why people hate learning English.

[Misterwhisper]

Just to double-check your saying no go on bonus damage as far RAW. Even if the channel states,.... when you roll, not before you roll.
This is why people hate learning English.

Yes.

Instead of rolling you dealt maximum damage so you can't get a bonus on a damage roll because you didn't make one.

[stoutstien]

Yes.

Instead of rolling you dealt maximum damage so you can't get a bonus on a damage roll because you didn't make one.
Got it. This is going on the list of, verify with players at session zero so we all on same page.

[Kadesh]

"When you roll lightning or thunder damage, you can use your Channel Divinity to deal maximum damage, instead of rolling."

No roll was made if you chose to maximise.

What prevents that from being a damage roll however? Given that all damage is specifically a damage roll?

[Rukelnikov]

Any source on that claim?

[n00b]

Any source on that claim?

He has none, but don't ask him to prove it. Other than words that don't mean what he says.

[NaughtyTiger]

Any source on that claim?

Kadesh's basis for his statement is that he claims the only way to deal damage is described in the section called Damage Rolls; therefore, all damage inflicted is considered a Damage Roll regardless of actual rolling.
He also agrees that you can only cast 1 action spells during combat, because that is the only place in the PHB that says you can cast a spell as an action.

The rest of the thread ignores him now. Apparently we are not ignoring his arguments.

[Kadesh]

Apparently so, given that 3 people have rushed in to tell me how much you ignore me.

You are still unable to provide a source for damage that is not a roll (with the exception of one, which explicitly says instead of rolling: notably not Armour of Agathys).

[Rukelnikov]

Apparently so, given that 3 people have rushed in to tell me how much you ignore me.

You are still unable to provide a source for damage that is not a roll (with the exception of one, which explicitly says instead of rolling: notably not Armour of Agathys).

I am still waiting for your proof that every instance of damage is a damage roll.

[NaughtyTiger]

I am still waiting for your proof that every instance of damage is a damage roll.

have you read the thread? he explains it in the thread. and then he explains his argument is useless.

[Kadesh]

I am still waiting for your proof that every instance of damage is a damage roll.
Prove it's not (except where noted it's not a roll, such as Cleric). Unless you're trying to prove RAW without stating RAW.

[Rukelnikov]

Prove it's not (except where noted it's not a roll, such as Cleric). Unless you're trying to prove RAW without stating RAW.

You are the one making the claim that not rolling dice is still a roll, burden of proof is on you.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Apparently so, given that 3 people have rushed in to tell me how much you ignore me.

You are still unable to provide a source for damage that is not a roll (with the exception of one, which explicitly says instead of rolling: notably not Armour of Agathys).

If having a static number when compared to any number of spells that ask for a dice roll to determine the damage number isn't proof enough, there's no convincing you.

The sources are there, the sources have been well explained and still you choose to ignore it and proceed on thinking that everyone who has responded has failed to disprove a statement that was never coherent in the first place.

-Armor of Agathys involves no rolling for damage
-Power Surge & Deflecting Shroud (War Wizard) involve no rolling for damage
-Desert Storm Aura (Path of the Storm Herald) involves no rolling for damage (compare it directly with the Frost version if this helps you understand the difference)
-Maddening Hex eldritch invocation, no roll
-Fury of the Small goblin racial feature, no roll
-Rebuke the Violent (Redemption Paladin channel divinity)
-Scornful Rebuke (15th lvl Conquest Paladin Feature)
-Holy Nymbus (20th lvl Devotion Paladin Feature)
-Lit oil (Oil Flask, equipment)
-Torch (Torch, equipment)
-And many many many more

The only time you "roll for damage" is when the damage specifies that it needs to be rolled to be determined. Effects that make no such specification deal a flat amount of damage and skip the rolling process altogether. If you aren't rolling dice, you aren't rolling.

[Kadesh]

The rules for Damage come under Damage rolls, and states the t all damage is rolled and modifiers applied.

Those that aren't are specific exceptions and state. But hey, please, again, provide sources that state that you can deal damage without being a damage roll (save for one's which explicitly states its instead of rolling).

Doing a mighty good job of ignoring by the way. :)


If having a static number when compared to any number of spells that ask for a dice roll to determine the damage number isn't proof enough, there's no convincing you.

The sources are there, the sources have been well explained and still you choose to ignore it and proceed on thinking that everyone who has responded has failed to disprove a statement that was never coherent in the first place.

-Armor of Agathys involves no rolling for damage
-Power Surge & Deflecting Shroud (War Wizard) involve no rolling for damage
-Desert Storm Aura (Path of the Storm Herald) involves no rolling for damage (compare it directly with the Frost version if this helps you understand the difference)
-Maddening Hex eldritch invocation, no roll
-Fury of the Small goblin racial feature, no roll
-Rebuke the Violent (Redemption Paladin channel divinity)
-Scornful Rebuke (15th lvl Conquest Paladin Feature)
-Holy Nymbus (20th lvl Devotion Paladin Feature)
-Lit oil (Oil Flask, equipment)
-Torch (Torch, equipment)
-And many many many more

The only time you "roll for damage" is when the damage specifies that it needs to be rolled to be determined. Effects that make no such specification deal a flat amount of damage and skip the rolling process altogether. If you aren't rolling dice, you aren't rolling.
Source? Or is this inferred?

[NaughtyTiger]

The rules for Damage come under Damage rolls, and states the t all damage is rolled and modifiers applied.
Those that aren't are specific exceptions and state. But hey, please, again, provide sources that state that you can deal damage without being a damage roll


The rules for Damage come under Damage rolls Combat, and states the t all damage is rolled and modifiers applied and only occurs in Combat.
Those that aren't are specific exceptions and state. But hey, please, again, provide sources that state that you can deal damage without being a damage roll in Combat

Fixed it for you.


You are right, though, we are not ignoring you. We tried.

[Kadesh]

Fixed it for you.


You are right, though, we are not ignoring you. We tried.

Correct. You cna only damage someone in combat. Again, we're you trying to prove something?

[NaughtyTiger]

Correct. You cna only damage someone in combat.

Correct. You cna only take damage someone in combat.

Now, now, if you are going to make an argument, you should be consistent. you have made it clear that you believe the only way to take damage is in combat, because Damage Rolls is in the Combat section. Fixed it for you again..


Again, we're you trying to prove something?

prove? no, but clarify that you are arguing traps cannot to damage, falls do not do damage.

[Rukelnikov]

Still waiting

[ProsecutorGodot]

The rules for Damage come under Damage rolls, and states the t all damage is rolled and modifiers applied.

[citation needed]


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 your target. Magic weapons, special abilities, and other factors can grant a bonus to damage.

With a penalty, it is possible to deal 0 damage, but never negative damage.

When attacking with a weapon, you add your ability modifier — the same modifier used for the attack roll — to the damage. A spell tells you which dice to roll for damage and whether to add any modifiers.

If a spell or other effect deals damage to more than one target at the same time, roll the damage once for all of them. For example, when a wizard casts fireball or a cleric casts flame strike, the spell's damage is rolled once for all creatures caught in the blast.

Nowhere in this entire section does it state that all damage is rolled, just what you're meant to do when it is rolled. You're the one claiming that all damage must be rolled, prove it. Make careful note though, that there are already several instances provided that show that damage can be dealt without any dice being involved. You're going to have a rough time proving that damage must be dealt with a roll.

[NaughtyTiger]

If anything gives a Warlock more Temp HPs, does that add to AoA working longer?

Frost Giant Soul Sorcerer explicitly allows the 6th level ability Soul of Lost Ostoria to recharge/add Temp HP to AOA.

[Kadesh]

Now, now, if you are going to make an argument, you should be consistent. you have made it clear that you believe the only way to take damage is in combat, because Damage Rolls is in the Combat section. Fixed it for you again..



prove? no, but clarify that you are arguing traps cannot to damage, falls do not do damage.

Thanks for the clarification. I'm AFB currently so can't check exact wording.

But thank you, yes, you can only take damage if you're in combat. Because that's what the rules say. Don't like it, you're disagreeing with RAW. Those that are not damage rolls explicitly call it out, like the Tempest Cleric kindly provided above states.

You all seem to be getting very angry at what the rules say. Try calming down.

[Rukelnikov]

I guess if you fall from a tree you need to roll initiative against the ground then.

[JackPhoenix]

Bless requires an attack roll or a check (so won't apply on a save).

Nitpick: Bless requires attack roll or save, it doesn't apply to ability checks.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I guess if you fall from a tree you need to roll initiative against the ground then.

Someone should also probably start rolling initiative for dart traps as well, we can laugh at the Paladin for still rolling lower initiative than an inanimate object.

[NaughtyTiger]

I guess if you fall from a tree you need to roll initiative against the ground then.

Yes, that is his stance. That is why he also argued that RAW is useless in this thread.

[JackPhoenix]

Someone should also probably start rolling initiative for dart traps as well, we can laugh at the Paladin for still rolling lower initiative than an inanimate object.

I mean, dart trap makes an attack, and you can only make attacks in combat too. Of course, dart traps, being objects, have no Dexterity score, and thus can't make Dex checks like initiative, so any time you encounter dart trap, the game gets stuck in an endless loop and needs to be restarted.

[Kadesh]

I mean, dart trap makes an attack, and you can only make attacks in combat too. Of course, dart traps, being objects, have no Dexterity score, and thus can't make Dex checks like initiative, so any time you encounter dart trap, the game gets stuck in an endless loop and needs to be restarted.

Damn pesky RAW.

[Citan]

So would a class ablity like a tempest cleric maximizing damage prevent them from using a rider such as the dragon sorcerer elemental affinity?
The damage is no longer rolled so it no longer fits the criteria? or does the fact it's a maximize roll automatically still indicate that the damage is supposedly rolled?
Very nice catch!

Never realized that loophole... Xd
Always stacked those.

I guess a justification could be that Draconic applies "before" the Channel Divinity which would be a subset exception.

But indeed, per the same logic above, one could argue by RAW you cannot have the cake and eat it. ^^

Prove it's not (except where noted it's not a roll, such as Cleric). Unless you're trying to prove RAW without stating RAW.


The rules for Damage come under Damage rolls, and states the t all damage is rolled and modifiers applied.

Those that aren't are specific exceptions and state. But hey, please, again, provide sources that state that you can deal damage without being a damage roll (save for one's which explicitly states its instead of rolling).

Doing a mighty good job of ignoring by the way. :)


Source? Or is this inferred?
There was actually me before ProsecutorGoDot that put black on white, right in front of your eyes, several features or effects that *simply deal flat damage, no mention of any roll (no "instead of rolling" that you like so much)*.

Who is ignoring who really?

Thanks for the clarification. I'm AFB currently so can't check exact wording.

But thank you, yes, you can only take damage if you're in combat. Because that's what the rules say. Don't like it, you're disagreeing with RAW. Those that are not damage rolls explicitly call it out, like the Tempest Cleric kindly provided above states.

You all seem to be getting very angry at what the rules say. Try calming down.
We are not angry at the rules. I'm not even sure anyone is angry really.
At least me, I'm rather sad to see you put so much effort in blinding yourself per useless pride.

[Kadesh]

It doesn't matter whether it says roll a dice, as the damage rules specify that it's a damage roll. Unless otherwise specified.

As it's not specified, and it just left to be inferred... Well, erm, then, it's not RAW.

I don't know where you're getting the idea I'm proud about the fact that someone somewhere wrote this rulebook and you're continuing to ignore the rules that are specified in that rulebook simply because you feel you know better than what the rulebook says.

[ProsecutorGodot]

It doesn't matter whether it says roll a dice, as the damage rules specify that it's a damage roll. Unless otherwise specified.

As it's not specified, and it just left to be inferred... Well, erm, then, it's not RAW.

I don't know where you're getting the idea I'm proud about the fact that someone somewhere wrote this rulebook and you're continuing to ignore the rules that are specified in that rulebook simply because you feel you know better than what the rulebook says.

Just want you to be aware that all of the statements you're making as fact create a rather slippery slope where the rules become even more absurd by "raw" the farther we go down the rabbit hole with you.
-you can only take damage in combat
-all damage is rolled
Leads us to a very comical (completely nonsensical) case where a poison dart trap that deals 1 piercing damage (not rolled) and Xd6 poison damage can never deal damage because initiative hasn't been rolled, by RAW apparently.

Neither of these statements are very good by themselves, together they're absurd. You still haven't cited where it says that all damage is rolled.

[Rukelnikov]

Just want you to be aware that all of the statements you're making as fact create a rather slippery slope where the rules become even more absurd by "raw" the farther we go down the rabbit hole with you.
-you can only take damage in combat
-all damage is rolled
Leads us to a very comical (completely nonsensical) case where a poison dart trap that deals 1 piercing damage (not rolled) and Xd6 poison damage can never deal damage because initiative hasn't been rolled, by RAW apparently.

Neither of these statements are very good by themselves, together they're absurd. You still haven't cited where it says that all damage is rolled.

I'm gonna take a wild guess and say he isn't citing it, because it isn't there :smallbiggrin:

[Kadesh]

I'm gonna take a wild guess and say he isn't citing it, because it isn't there :smallbiggrin:

Wold guess indeed. AFB. Find the rules that instruct how damage is taken. See the hit that's headed damage rolls. That's the only bit in the entire ruleset which instructs how damage is taken.

Either: all damage is a roll, or damage that isn't a roll cannot exist. Your choice. Per RAW. Alternatively, cyiu can infer, but you can''t state it' s RAW that damage without a roll is impossible unless it explicitly states.

Of course, it does create a slippery slope. It is almost as if the game is nonfunctional when RAW is applied. Ergo, given that there is at least one case which specifies when it is NOT a roll, that sets a precedent for non rolling to specify it as such, and all others -that might well be intended to not interact with abilities that work on a damage roll (a damage roll being something different tha a die roll, even though a die roll is sometimes a part of a damage roll) - are simply damage rolls.

Gotta love "RAW" as an argument, hey.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Wold guess indeed. AFB. Find the rules that instruct how damage is taken. See the hit that's headed damage rolls. That's the only bit in the entire ruleset which instructs how damage is taken.

Either: all damage is a roll, or damage that isn't a roll cannot exist. Your choice. Per RAW. Alternatively, cyiu can infer, but you can''t state it' s RAW that damage without a roll is impossible unless it explicitly states.

Of course, it does create a slippery slope. It is almost as if the game is nonfunctional when RAW is applied. Ergo, given that there is at least one case which specifies when it is NOT a roll, that sets a precedent for non rolling to specify it as such, and all others -that might well be intended to not interact with abilities that work on a damage roll (a damage roll being something different tha a die roll, even though a die roll is sometimes a part of a damage roll) - are simply damage rolls.

Gotta love "RAW" as an argument, hey.
Well, I'm well and truly lost at this point. You're arguing that RAW is what supports your argument but that using RAW makes the game nonfunctional.

I would argue that making such "raw" statements is ill-advised when you don't actually have the written work in front of you, but having my own book in front of me hasn't helped me make sense of what you're arguing so I doubt it would be much help.

[n00b]

I went back through the posts and Kadesh has not once actually quoted any source. He's paraphrased some stuff that I assume he thinks he's read. He's even contradicted himself at times. Though his argument has gone from all damage is considered a roll to all damage is considered a roll unless specified otherwise. I could make the statement that the Earth is flat, except where it isn't and that would be just as correct, and just as inane. At this point I really think he's just baiting everyone. Post history indicates that's a possibility. And I'm sure there will be some cute reply that has nothing to do with proving himself and that's ok. He's already proven he doesn't have a grasp of the rules.

[Rukelnikov]

Wold guess indeed. AFB. Find the rules that instruct how damage is taken. See the hit that's headed damage rolls. That's the only bit in the entire ruleset which instructs how damage is taken.

Either: all damage is a roll, or damage that isn't a roll cannot exist. Your choice. Per RAW. Alternatively, cyiu can infer, but you can''t state it' s RAW that damage without a roll is impossible unless it explicitly states.

Of course, it does create a slippery slope. It is almost as if the game is nonfunctional when RAW is applied. Ergo, given that there is at least one case which specifies when it is NOT a roll, that sets a precedent for non rolling to specify it as such, and all others -that might well be intended to not interact with abilities that work on a damage roll (a damage roll being something different tha a die roll, even though a die roll is sometimes a part of a damage roll) - are simply damage rolls.

Gotta love "RAW" as an argument, hey.

I'm a patient guy, when you are not AFB, cite it.

[Kadesh]

When you can provide a source that tells how damage is taken when it's a 'flat' roll, then we shall see who is baiting whom. I'm, not baiting, honest. First I'm 'choosing a hill to die on', 'proud' to read a book, next I'm 'baiting'. All because you are unable to source your own assertions that damage is not a damage roll (depsite the only reference on how damage is taken being a damage roll).

Meanwhile, a Damage Roll is a damage roll, which sometimes dictates a die gets rolled. This is quite literally what the rules say, and are written. You are saying that a damage isn't a roll. Okay, so tell me what happens in that instance? There aren't the rules written for it, they can only be inferred. Ie, not written and ineligible to be declared RAW. Infer away it's yohr game, your prerogative. Not rules, though.

I'm AFB at the minute, but you have all quoted as such earlier in the thread anyway? Surely you've already read the parts of the book dictating what happens when you take damage? (Damage Rolls, Combat Chapter, as I keep being so rightly told).

That more things do not work when you actually read the rules are not really of concern to this argument, either hut feel free to keep pointing out the in accuracies of the game. They only serve to reinforce the point that RAW is a rather useless vehicle to base an argument on unless you are willing to similarly fully commit.
I'm a patient guy, when you are not AFB, cite it.

Your continual and insistent posts in this thread suggest otherwise.

[Rukelnikov]

When you can provide a source that tells how damage is taken when it's a 'flat' roll, then we shall see who is baiting whom. I'm, not baiting, honest. First I'm 'choosing a hill to die on', 'proud' to read a book, next I'm 'baiting'. All because you are unable to source your own assertions that damage is not a damage roll (depsite the only reference on how damage is taken being a damage roll).

Meanwhile, a Damage Roll is a damage roll, which sometimes dictates a die gets rolled. This is quite literally what the rules say, and are written. You are saying that a damage isn't a roll. Okay, so tell me what happens in that instance? There aren't the rules written for it, they can only be inferred. Ie, not written and ineligible to be declared RAW. Infer away it's yohr game, your prerogative. Not rules, though.

I'm AFB at the minute, but you have all quoted as such earlier in the thread anyway? Surely you've already read the parts of the book dictating what happens when you take damage? (Damage Rolls, Combat Chapter, as I keep being so rightly told).

That more things do not work when you actually read the rules are not really of concern to this argument, either hut feel free to keep pointing out the in accuracies of the game. They only serve to reinforce the point that RAW is a rather useless vehicle to base an argument on unless you are willing to similarly fully commit.

Your continual and insistent posts in this thread suggest otherwise.

You mean my one line answers to your walls of text?

[n00b]

When you can provide a source that tells how damage is taken when it's a 'flat' roll, then we shall see who is baiting whom. I'm, not baiting, honest. First I'm 'choosing a hill to die on', 'proud' to read a book, next I'm 'baiting'. All because you are unable to source your own assertions that damage is not a damage roll (depsite the only reference on how damage is taken being a damage roll).

You've been given multiple citations. You just choose to ignore them.

[ProsecutorGodot]

You are saying that a damage isn't a roll. Okay, so tell me what happens in that instance? There aren't the rules written for it, they can only be inferred. Ie, not written and ineligible to be declared RAW. Infer away it's yohr game, your prerogative. Not rules, though.

The effects that deal damage without a roll say "you take/deal X Damage". There's no inference on whether or not a roll happens because nothing is rolled, nothing has to be rolled. What happens when you take or deal damage is described in the Damage and Healing section of the rules under Hit Points.

I would really suggest that you not make any further statements until a point where you can put together a cohesive argument with the PHB in front of you in one shape or another so that your argument has the best chance of being received in the way that you intend it to.

I've tried to understand at least the stance you drew this conclusion from but between the constant contradictions and flat out errors I can't find it.

To summarize, in the simplest possible way for you: if a feature deals X fire damage, you don't have to roll for the damage and it's literally as easy to resolve as subtracting X from your current hit points. There is no inference made on anyone's part, it's elementary school subtraction.

[RSP]

When you can provide a source that tells how damage is taken when it's a 'flat' roll, then we shall see who is baiting whom.


Here’s a rule that tells us how to use damage (nothing about damage rolls):
“Whenever a creature takes damage, that damage is subtracted from its hit points.”

Here’s another that references damaging spells without mentioning damage rolls:
“Different attacks, damaging spells, and other harmful effects deal different types of damage.”

Another that cites the dangers of damage:
“Massive damage can kill you instantly. When damage reduces you to 0 hit points and there is damage remaining, you die if the remaining damage equals or exceeds your hit point maximum.”

[bid]

When you can provide a source
Pot, kettle.
Although you should know the kettle only looks dark because it reflects the pot.


AFB can only offer RAI, without the factual written words you can't call it RAW.

[NaughtyTiger]

If i concede that per RAW:
all damage is a damage roll
you can only take damage during combat,
you can only cast a 1-action spell during combat,
because RAW is stupid, will you accept that and not demand any more citations so others can discuss the thread using a workable version of the rules?

This was actually an interesting thread before we ALL got into this childish back and forth. And we ruined it.



EDITED: Per a strict RAW, I agree with all that I listed above. A strict reading of RAW makes for an unworkable game. Now Kadesh will not demand citations for RAW in this thread.

[stoutstien]

Actually the more I read the tempest channel the less I understand it lol.
..WHEN you roll lighting or thunder........you can INSTEAD deal maximum damage.
So RAW, it could be argued that a player could roll for damage then maximize it seeing how it's not worded in a way to prevent it or disallow it.
Examples would be divination wizards portent clearly states you must use it before the rolls takes place or bards inspiration that allows to see the roll before you use the feature.

[Kadesh]

If i concede that per RAW:
all damage is a damage roll
you can only take damage during combat,
you can only cast a 1-action spell during combat,
because RAW is stupid, will you accept that and not demand any more citations so others can discuss the thread using a workable version of the rules?

This was actually an interesting thread before we ALL got into this childish back and forth. And we ruined it.

Of course. No problem with it.

[RSP]

Of course. No problem with it.

Im just going to put this here; I feel it was missed the first time:


When you can provide a source that tells how damage is taken when it's a 'flat' roll, then we shall see who is baiting whom.


Here’s a rule that tells us how to use damage (nothing about damage rolls):

“Whenever a creature takes damage, that damage is subtracted from its hit points.”

[Kadesh]

The moment had gone mate.

[RSP]

The moment had gone mate.

Um, what? Are you no longer arguing that “all damage is a damage roll”?

[NaughtyTiger]

I guess if you fall from a tree you need to roll initiative against the ground then.

did you already post this exact quote?



Um, what? Are you no longer arguing that “all damage is a damage roll”?


Kadesh has already conceded that his stance is that strict RAW is impossible to play.

At this point, both of you are just picking a fight.

[n00b]

Kadesh has already conceded that his stance is that strict RAW is impossible to play.

Except for the fact his stance isn't RAW.

[RSP]

Kadesh has already conceded that his stance is that strict RAW is impossible to play.

At this point, both of you are just picking a fight.

I’m not sure why you think you know my motives, but In the future, I’d appreciate you not guessing on them.

As for what Kadesh has, or has not stated, I’ll give him the respect of answering for himself.

[JoeJ]

Kadesh has already conceded that his stance is that strict RAW is impossible to play.

I'll repeat something I posted here several years ago:

"Something to keep in mind is that almost any text can be interpreted in more than one way. This includes the rules of games. The fact that a rule can be interpreted in a way that's abusive does not prove that the game is broken, or that a house rule is needed to counter that interpretation.

If fact, I will here formally propose the Zeroth Rule of Gaming: No rule in any game shall be interpreted in a way that breaks the game if it is possible to interpret that rule in a way that does not."

[NaughtyTiger]

Except for the fact his stance isn't RAW.

Okay, fine, let's say that's true.
are you going to convince him of this? no.
has he stopped pushing his stance per the agreement? yes.
are you still goading him into responding in a way that he agreed not to do? yes.


I’m not sure why you think you know my motives, but In the future, I’d appreciate you not guessing on them.
As for what Kadesh has, or has not stated, I’ll give him the respect of answering for himself.

Ug, why are you making me defend him?

he clearly stated why he thinks it is RAW.
he agreed not to continue the argument.
you are continuing to press him on the argument.

i don't know your motives, i dont know why you are continuing to press him on it.
i do know that you are continuing.

[n00b]

Okay, fine, let's say that's true.
are you going to convince him of this? no.
has he stopped pushing his stance per the agreement? yes.
are you still goading him into responding in a way that he agreed not to do? yes.



Ug, why are you making me defend him?

he clearly stated why he thinks it is RAW.
he agreed not to continue the argument.
you are continuing to press him on the argument.

i don't know your motives, i dont know why you are continuing to press him on it.
i do know that you are continuing.

I didn't respond to him. I responded to you. If he chooses not to respond further I'll just assume he realizes he's wrong and just went away quietly. If he continues to argue the fact I'll assume he just doesn't know the rules. Until he can prove otherwise with a citation of some sort. Of which he's never manage to do.

[RSP]

Okay, fine, let's say that's true.
are you going to convince him of this? no.
has he stopped pushing his stance per the agreement? yes.
are you still goading him into responding in a way that he agreed not to do? yes.

Are you a GitP moderator or something?

People discussing the rules is one of the reasons this site exists. If you dislike the thread, or have heartburn over the discussion, avoid this thread, or ignore those who you don’t want to see post.

Why would you care about getting Kadesh to agree not to respond to a discussion, if that’s what he wants to do?

[RSP]

Ug, why are you making me defend him?

he clearly stated why he thinks it is RAW.
he agreed not to continue the argument.
you are continuing to press him on the argument.

i don't know your motives, i dont know why you are continuing to press him on it.
i do know that you are continuing.

I’m not making you do anything. You’re trying to speak for him and trying to shut down the discussion. Why, I have no idea, but again, if you don’t like it, stop posting.

[NaughtyTiger]

I didn't respond to him. I responded to you.
Touchee!



Are you a GitP moderator or something?

People discussing the rules is one of the reasons this site exists. If you dislike the thread, or have heartburn over the discussion, avoid this thread, or ignore those who you don’t want to see post.
Why would you care about getting Kadesh to agree not to respond to a discussion, if that’s what he wants to do?

We stopped discussing the rules about 2 pages ago...

As for why?
I was hoping that the forum would be less hostile and fewer personal attacks.
you are right, attack away. go at it

[RSP]

Touchee!




We stopped discussing the rules about 2 pages ago...

As for why?
I was hoping that the forum would be less hostile and fewer personal attacks.
you are right, attack away.

What attack? He stated he was looking for a rules quote. I provided it.

You decided everyone should stop discussing.

[Kadesh]

Okay. Enjoy your day people.

[RSP]

Okay. Enjoy your day people.

I’ll take that as an acknowledgement of agreement per the damage rules

[n00b]

Okay. Enjoy your day people.

So you're saying you can't prove your claim with anything so you're just walking away? Works for me.

[Kadesh]

So you're saying you can't prove your claim with anything so you're just walking away? Works for me.
Read what you want to into it.

[Citan]

Guys, I think everyone that posted in this thread (at least regarding that bit about damage nature) silently agreed that everything that could serve into a constructive argument had been said.
Obviously each one's position won't change at this point.
And this all was borderline off-topic in the first place considering OP's question.

So, why not let that particular point die down? That way if OP has other questions he can jump in again, otherwise thread is probably "closed". ^^