Rules Q&A Does an Attack with a Flat Amount of Damage Constitute a "Damage Roll"? [Archive]

Xeko

2019-03-07, 04:04 AM

There are multiple effects in the game that give a bonus to damage rolls. But do these bonuses apply to attacks that deal a set amount of damage, without the need to roll dice? Simple unarmed strikes are the most common, but there are plenty of attacks that deal pre-determined amounts of damage. Under normal circumstances, I would think the answer would be obvious, roll means roll, right? But there's one thing I saw that makes me think the opposite, and I'm here asking what you guys think.

So, the Monk's Martial Arts feature states that "you can use Dexterity instead of Strength for the attacks and damage rolls of your unarmed strikes and monk weapons." This implies that unarmed strikes (which normally deal a flat amount of damage, 1+STR) do indeed have damage rolls.

On a separate bullet point under the same class feature, it is established that you can use a d4 (or other sized dice determined by your Monk level) instead of the normal damage for these attacks. That these two items are on separate bullet points suggests that they are independent benefits from one another, so the first bullet point implying fists have damage rolls is independent from the second bullet point that actually gives them a dice to roll. Also "can" is not "must".

So, if I am reading this correctly, a monk may choose to use Dexterity instead of Strength, and also choose to NOT use the d4 to calculate damage (though there's absolutely no benefit to making that choice). Which further supports the idea that, RAW, unarmed strikes, an attack with a flat damage output, could indeed be considered a "damage roll".

I suppose the question is then, are unarmed strikes generally considered damage rolls, or is Monk just a special case because they may choose to use an actual die? And would this not also apply to other effects that deal flat damage amounts?

Example 1; A Barbarian raging. The Rage feature specifically says it grants a bonus to damage rolls. Does a barbarian still get this bonus when attacking with his fists? If not, and abilities with flat damage amounts don't count as damage rolls, then how does a DM justify that? It doesn't make much sense for the barbarian's rage to not effect their punches.

Example 2; moving away from unarmed strikes specifically, and using a different example of an ability that deals flat damage. A Hexblade Warlock with the Maddening Hex invocation. Hexblade's Curse grants a bonus to damage rolls, Maddening Hex is an attack that deals damage equal to your Charisma modifier. Would the effect of Hexblade's Curse increase the damage of the Maddening Hex attack?

Glorthindel

2019-03-07, 04:33 AM

I would say it isn't very clear cut, and it requires a bit of adjudication of whether the set damage is replicating a roll (but with just a fixed result) or if it is a specific value coming from something else.

In your examples, I would say yes to 1, no to 2.

In the first case, the reasoning behind this, is all melee attacks involve a damage roll, so unarmed should be no different. Although it is written as 1, I would interpret it as a roll of a d1 (which is obviously always a result of a 1). In this way, unarmed attacks fall in line with all other melee attacks in the way they are treated.

In the latter case, the damge is a flat value calculated due to something else (be it level, stat bonus, etc), so shouldn't be open to any additional bonuses not stipulated in the ability itself.

MThurston

2019-03-07, 07:44 AM

Here is the they.

Armor of Argathy does 5 points if frost damage per level cast.

If I have the Hexblade Curse on my target and my target strikes me, then there is no prof bonus damage.

If I cast Hellish Rebuke, then there would be.

At 4th level if I hit target 1 with Green Flame Blade and have the secondary target my Hexblade Curse, I would then allow the prof damage.

The reason is at 5th level the secondary target takes weapon dice + stat. I think it's stupid at 1-4 It would not count but after 5th it always does.

I know it is splitting hairs but remeber the DM is allowed to change rules they do not like.

Many DMs allow flanking to give advantage.

Ganymede

2019-03-07, 09:47 AM

NaughtyTiger

2019-03-07, 10:42 AM

Theodoric

2019-03-07, 10:53 AM

So, the Monk's Martial Arts feature states that "you can use Dexterity instead of Strength for the attacks and damage rolls of your unarmed strikes and monk weapons." This implies that unarmed strikes (which normally deal a flat amount of damage, 1+STR) do indeed have damage rolls.
That's a bit of a stretch considering the very next bullet point in that ability is what allows you to roll for damage for unarmed strikes in the first place. That's crucial context.

NaughtyTiger

2019-03-07, 11:21 AM

That's a bit of a stretch considering the very next bullet point in that ability is what allows you to roll for damage for unarmed strikes in the first place. That's crucial context.

Are you saying that bullets of a feature must be taken together.

For example, the 2nd bullet of crossbow expert states
"Being within 5 feet of a hostile creature doesn't impose disadvantage on your ranged attack rolls."
are you saying that only applies to crossbows because the 1st bullet, 3rd bullet, and title only relate to crossbows?

stoutstien

2019-03-07, 11:24 AM

Are you saying that bullets of a feature must be taken together.

For example, the 2nd bullet of crossbow expert states
"Being within 5 feet of a hostile creature doesn't impose disadvantage on your ranged attack rolls."
are you saying that only applies to crossbows because the 1st bullet, 3rd bullet, and title only relate to crossbows?
RTMS(rulings that make sense) yes.
The feat is called crossbow expert not:

Crossbow expert
better with crossbows and better at spells with attack rolls and maybe bows also. TM*.

Rukelnikov

2019-03-07, 11:40 AM

Fists essentially deal a d1 damage.

NaughtyTiger

2019-03-07, 11:46 AM

RTMS(rulings that make sense) yes.
The feat is called crossbow expert not:

Crossbow expert
better with crossbows and better at spells with attack rolls and maybe bows also. TM*.

I find that this interpretation is in the minority.
Especially since Crawford (a pox on his name and all of his line) indicated that the extended title is RAI.

I look at individual bullets as independent. So I will rule with that interpretation in mind.

RSP

2019-03-07, 11:50 AM

That's a bit of a stretch considering the very next bullet point in that ability is what allows you to roll for damage for unarmed strikes in the first place. That's crucial context.

Right: the same ability grants the two abilities in discussion, so it’s reasonable the two anticipate each being in play.

Damage rolls, in the RAW, is used as common English, not as a game term. The first time we see this is in the first time the RAW bring up rolling for damage: it’s the third phase of making an attack:

“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.”

Note it stated “you roll damage” not “you make a Damage Roll.” If Damage Roll was a game term that meant “damage”, then it would use Damage Roll, and not the common English of “roll damage.”

Further, the rule even tells us you don’t roll damage if the attack states otherwise (such as the Unarmed Strike damage that tells you to use 1+Str). So, those instances of being told “the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise” aren’t “damage rolls.”

RSP

2019-03-07, 11:52 AM

I find that this interpretation is in the minority.
Especially since Crawford (a pox on his name and all of his line) indicated that the extended title is RAI.

I look at individual bullets as independent. So I will rule with that interpretation in mind.

Each bullet is independent, however, since they all come from the same ability, they’re written anticipating each other, as having one bullet necessitates having the others (regardless of whether one chooses to implement the other bullets, they do have them as abilities).

NaughtyTiger

2019-03-07, 11:56 AM

Each bullet is independent, however, since they all come from the same ability, they’re written anticipating each other, as having one bullet necessitates having the others (regardless of whether one chooses to implement the other bullets, they do have them as abilities).

Are you saying that Crossbow expert's no disadvantage at 5ft range only applies to crossbows, not longbows, nets, or spells?

RSP

2019-03-07, 11:58 AM

Fists essentially deal a d1 damage.

Not according to the RAW. Unarmed Strikes deal 1+Str mod damage.

stoutstien

2019-03-07, 11:59 AM

I find that this interpretation is in the minority.
Especially since Crawford (a pox on his name and all of his line) indicated that the extended title is RAI.

I look at individual bullets as independent. So I will rule with that interpretation in mind.
I find Crawford's rulings to be inconsistent at best. Nothing against the man some of those ideas are great but not my go-to source to figure out the intended balance of mechanical parts of the game.

If I sat down another table I would respect their ruling on this.

RSP

2019-03-07, 12:01 PM

Are you saying that Crossbow expert's no disadvantage at 5ft range only applies to crossbows, not longbows, nets, or spells?

If you’re referring to:

“Being within 5 feet of a hostile creature doesn’t impose disadvantage on your ranged attack rolls.”

Why wouldn’t that apply to any ranged attacks as it states?

Edit: to expand upon this, the OP doesn’t read the bullet properly:

“you can use Dexterity instead of Strength for the attacks and damage rolls of your unarmed strikes and monk weapons.”

This doesn’t say “use 1+Dex mod instead of 1+Str mod for damage.” It says you can use Dexterity instead of Strength for the Attack and damage rolls of unarmed strikes and Monk weapons. If you’re choosing not to use the Monk damage die, and hence are not rolling damage, then Unarmed Strikes deal 1+Str mod. So the assertion the OP makes that it means “1+Str=damage roll”, is faulty.

NaughtyTiger

2019-03-07, 12:02 PM

I find Crawford's rulings to be inconsistent at best
...

If I sat down another table I would respect their ruling on this.

I agree with both of those statements, so there is that.

NaughtyTiger

2019-03-07, 12:09 PM

If you’re referring to:
“Being within 5 feet of a hostile creature doesn’t impose disadvantage on your ranged attack rolls.”
Why wouldn’t that apply to any ranged attacks as it states?

Yes that is what I am referring to.
Your previous statement was unclear as to your meaning:
"Each bullet is independent, however, since they all come from the same ability, they’re written anticipating each other, as having one bullet necessitates having the others (regardless of whether one chooses to implement the other bullets, they do have them as abilities)."

I interpreted you as saying:
no disadvantage for ranged attack rolls only applies to crossbows because title, bullet 1, and bullet 2 only apply to crossbows.
- and -
only monk unarmed attacks have damage rolls because the next bullet says monk unarmed attacks have damage rolls.

RSP

2019-03-07, 12:12 PM

Yes that is what I am referring to.
Your previous statement was unclear as to your meaning:
"Each bullet is independent, however, since they all come from the same ability, they’re written anticipating each other, as having one bullet necessitates having the others (regardless of whether one chooses to implement the other bullets, they do have them as abilities)."

I interpreted you as saying:
no disadvantage for ranged attack rolls only applies to crossbows because title, bullet 1, and bullet 2 only apply to crossbows.
- and -
only monk unarmed attacks have damage rolls because the next bullet says monk unarmed attacks have damage rolls.

Not what I was saying (edited prior post to clarify). I was saying “since all these abilities come as a package, they are written assuming the others”, as shown in the Martial Arts ability: it assumes you’re using the ability to roll damage rather than taking the 1.

That doesn’t mean the rules don’t mean what they say; they still do and if they say “ranged attacks” they mean “ranged attacks.”

Xeko

2019-03-07, 10:53 PM

Here is the they.

Armor of Argathy does 5 points if frost damage per level cast.

If I have the Hexblade Curse on my target and my target strikes me, then there is no prof bonus damage.

If I cast Hellish Rebuke, then there would be.

The difference is, Armor of Agathys is a spell that generates a buff, which deals damage to attackers automatically. You do not choose to trigger the damage yourself. You are not the direct source of the damage, you merely created the scenario that allowed the enemy to deal the damage to themselves. It would be similar to pushing someone into a pit. You may have caused the fall damage to happen, but you are not the direct source of the damage, gravity is. Things like Hexblade's Curse and Barbarian Rage don't trigger from fall damage. Hellish Rebuke, meanwhile, is damage that is directly caused by the player. They have to make the decision and use the reaction to deal the damage. That is why Hexblade's Curse triggers on Hellish Rebuke, and not Armor of Agathys. It has nothing to do with whether or not there's a dice roll, it's entirely based on HOW the damage is dealt.

So, the question remains, would an attack that deals a flat amount of damage trigger an effect that grants a bonus to damage rolls? Barbarian rage and unarmed strikes. Hexblade's Curse and Maddening Hex. And now, as you pointed out, a new example, Hexblade's Curse and Green Flame Blade, where the secondary target of GFB is the one who is cursed. You say that how you would rule it is at level 4, Green Flame Blade would not trigger Hexblade's Curse, but at level 5 it would. But why? What is the justification for that distinction, beyond the word "roll"?

Malifice

2019-03-07, 11:07 PM

Im torn on this one; I can see arguments for and against.

I cant really see why there would be a meaningful difference at attack triggering a 'roll' of damage, and one that triggers a static amount (such as an unarmed strike).

Would I allow Hexblades Curse or Barbarian Rage bonus damage on the fixed damage dealt by succesful attack rolls with Unarmed strikes? Yeah I would.

Not sure that this is supposed to happen though.

BurgerBeast

2019-03-07, 11:32 PM

Xeko

2019-03-07, 11:34 PM

Don't play Hide The Ball with your rule question.

Just ask "Does the damage bonus from Hexblade's Curse apply to the damage inflicted by Maddening Hex?" We all know that's what you really care about.

There's no need to be facetious. Are you suggesting that the idea of a Barbarian's unarmed strikes not causing rage damage isn't something worth discussing? Seems like a pretty big oversight, if true. I'm certainly curious what others think on it. The question I am asking is exactly what I said it was in my original post and the title of this thread, does flat damage constitute a damage roll for the purposes of effects that grant bonuses to damage rolls? The barbarian and the warlock are just two, of many potential examples.

I could just as easily have used the example of a Fighter, Ranger, or Paladin with the Dueling fighting style, using Unarmed Strikes. Dueling gives +2 to damage rolls with one-handed attacks when not dual-wielding. The only reason I didn't use that as an example is because, while unarmed strikes are definitely considered melee weapon attacks, it is still pretty vague whether or not fists are considered weapons (personally I would argue that professional boxing matches are a form of dueling, and thus the fighting style should absolutely apply to unarmed strikes). So, I didn't use that example, because that would cause its own argument that would detract from the main question. Which again, is do flat damage amounts count as damage rolls, for the purposes of effects that grant bonuses to damage rolls?

Xeko

2019-03-07, 11:37 PM

If ability modifiers were meant to apply to flat damage, then why would they bother to specify that unarmed strikes do “1 plus your strength modifier” damage?

They could’ve just said that unarmed strikes do “1” damage. The “ plus your strength modifier” wouldn’t be necessary.

Note, for example, that booming blade doesn’t mention “plus your strength/dexterity modifier” in the scaling part of the description. It appears to me that is because it’s not necessary - the more general rules cover it.

But we aren't talking about Ability Score Modifiers. In fact, one of the examples in question is Maddening Hex which deals "psychic damage equal to your Charisma Modifier". It would be weird to deal damage equal to your spellcasting mod, and THEN add your spellcasting mod to it. No, what we are talking about are other effects that specify "you gain a bonus to your damage rolls", such as the Hexblade's Curse, the Barbarian's Rage, the Dueling Fighting Style, and other such abilities.

sophontteks

2019-03-07, 11:55 PM

We could ask Jeremy. He'll probably get a huge kick out of a pack of nerds that can't figure out what an attack roll is in d&d.

Ganymede

2019-03-08, 12:05 AM

There's no need to be facetious.

I was 100% serious.

Shuruke

2019-03-08, 12:45 AM

BurgerBeast

2019-03-08, 01:21 AM

But we aren't talking about Ability Score Modifiers. In fact, one of the examples in question is Maddening Hex which deals "psychic damage equal to your Charisma Modifier". It would be weird to deal damage equal to your spellcasting mod, and THEN add your spellcasting mod to it. No, what we are talking about are other effects that specify "you gain a bonus to your damage rolls", such as the Hexblade's Curse, the Barbarian's Rage, the Dueling Fighting Style, and other such abilities.

Yes, but (unless I am really misunderstanding) that hinges on whether or not the 1 damage from unarmed strike is considered a damage roll.

What I meant to say (but failed to say - sorry) is that there is at least some evidence that the 1 is not considered a roll, because if it were, they would not have to say “plus your strength modifier” - that already applies to all damage rolls.

Shuruke

2019-03-08, 01:54 AM

Yes, but (unless I am really misunderstanding) that hinges on whether or not the 1 damage from unarmed strike is considered a damage roll.

What I meant to say (but failed to say - sorry) is that there is at least some evidence that the 1 is not considered a roll, because if it were, they would not have to say “plus your strength modifier” - that already applies to all damage rolls.

Most dms I have had just rule that damage done from an attack roll gets bonuses

Ie of your punching someone or gets rage because your angry and punching harder.

I would assume that since unarmed strike is on simple weapon table that the 1 would count as a damage roll

Same with the (crickets) blow dart gun cough

Way I see it is it is left to dm interpretation

5e is simplified in most ways

They could have said
You gain x damage on damage from melee weapon attacks

Or u gain x damage on damage from melee attacks

Etc

Instead they said damage rolls because
Maybe they just forgot the 2 instances / "weapons" that do 1 damage

And the two object s.that deal flat damage
Torch and oil

Xeko

2019-03-08, 02:49 AM

Yes, but (unless I am really misunderstanding) that hinges on whether or not the 1 damage from unarmed strike is considered a damage roll.

What I meant to say (but failed to say - sorry) is that there is at least some evidence that the 1 is not considered a roll, because if it were, they would not have to say “plus your strength modifier” - that already applies to all damage rolls.

That's not true though. You don't get your ability modifiers on "all damage rolls" at all. Most cantrips don't include your spell casting modifier. Since we're talking about Warlock anyway, Eldritch Blast is a prime example. There is an Eldritch Invocation that allows the Warlock to add their Charisma modifier to the damage roll, but under normal circumstances, you don't. And no one is going to argue that the d10 of Eldritch Blast doesn't count as a damage roll.

OvisCaedo

2019-03-08, 03:17 AM

Yes, but (unless I am really misunderstanding) that hinges on whether or not the 1 damage from unarmed strike is considered a damage roll.

What I meant to say (but failed to say - sorry) is that there is at least some evidence that the 1 is not considered a roll, because if it were, they would not have to say “plus your strength modifier” - that already applies to all damage rolls.

To throw even more of a mess into this while also dragging in another technicality that has caused plenty of headaches... Adding your modifier is what the game says to do by default when attacking with a weapon. Despite the initial printing of the book putting it into the weapons table, its subsequent removal and the addition of the text specifying how much damage it does sort of mean it was an exception that needed to be called out. Plenty of other features have had frustrating exceptions and arguments over unarmed strikes being "weapon attacks" but not "attacks with a weapon".

RSP

2019-03-08, 09:22 AM

The difference is, Armor of Agathys is a spell that generates a buff, which deals damage to attackers automatically. You do not choose to trigger the damage yourself. You are not the direct source of the damage, you merely created the scenario that allowed the enemy to deal the damage to themselves. It would be similar to pushing someone into a pit. You may have caused the fall damage to happen, but you are not the direct source of the damage, gravity is. Things like Hexblade's Curse and Barbarian Rage don't trigger from fall damage. Hellish Rebuke, meanwhile, is damage that is directly caused by the player. They have to make the decision and use the reaction to deal the damage. That is why Hexblade's Curse triggers on Hellish Rebuke, and not Armor of Agathys. It has nothing to do with whether or not there's a dice roll, it's entirely based on HOW the damage is dealt.

Not correct per the RAW. The RAW doesn’t distinguish between the “direct source” of the damage. The RAW deals with whether or not something has a damage roll (specifically “You gain a bonus to damage rolls against the cursed target. The bonus equals your proficiency bonus.” for Hexblade’s Curse, so the PC needs to be making the damage roll).

Dice rolls are described as “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.”

Rolling damage, or damage rolls, therefore are dice rolls that determine damage. Anything that doesn’t include rolling dice, isn’t a damage roll.

AoA is a good example of damage that doesn’t come from a damage roll. Compare it Shadow of Moil, which has a very similar mechanic of when damage is dealt as AoA, but does include a damage roll. AoA doesn’t get the Hexblade’s Curse damage bonus, but SoM does.

BurgerBeast

2019-03-08, 09:31 AM

That's not true though. You don't get your ability modifiers on "all damage rolls" at all. Most cantrips don't include your spell casting modifier. Since we're talking about Warlock anyway, Eldritch Blast is a prime example. There is an Eldritch Invocation that allows the Warlock to add their Charisma modifier to the damage roll, but under normal circumstances, you don't. And no one is going to argue that the d10 of Eldritch Blast doesn't count as a damage roll.

This is true, but I think it’s fair to say we all know this.

Change “all damage rolls” to “all melee weapon attack damage rolls,” in my post, and my point remains.

That’s the relevant context.

n00b

2019-03-08, 09:51 AM

Hey so on this topic for damage rolls

Basoc unarmed strike of 1 plus str
On a crit would it deal 2+ str
Or still 1+str since their is nothing to roll twice

Same thing with oil
Since oil, acid, alchemist fire are supposed to add modifiers
Would oil be 5+ mod or 10+mod on a crit

This could make champion Alchemist funny

For what it's worth Crawford did weigh in on this saying it's still 1+str for a crit unarmed strike. No die to roll so no roll to double.

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/736085559597096960

Also there's been a discussion about this on RPG Stack Exchange.

https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/57051/does-an-unarmed-strike-get-double-damage-on-a-critical-hit

Theodoric

2019-03-08, 10:11 AM

Are you saying that bullets of a feature must be taken together.
Actually the opposite, though I can see how I was being unclear. :smallredface: One can apply the 'no disadvantage at close range' rule of that feat by itself, so it's a bit different. For the effect to happen, it's not dependent on any other part of the feat.

With Martial Artist, 'Add your dexterity to damage roles from unarmed strikes' means nothing by itself, since one doesn't normally role for damage for unarmed strikes. The only reason that line has the desired effect is because of the next one that turns into a damage role. It wouldn't be a damage roll without the additional rule in the next line, so it by itself is not an example of a fixed instance of damage being a 'roll'.

Willie the Duck

2019-03-08, 10:28 AM

I suppose the question is then, are unarmed strikes generally considered damage rolls, or is Monk just a special case because they may choose to use an actual die? And would this not also apply to other effects that deal flat damage amounts?

Example 1; A Barbarian raging. The Rage feature specifically says it grants a bonus to damage rolls. Does a barbarian still get this bonus when attacking with his fists? If not, and abilities with flat damage amounts don't count as damage rolls, then how does a DM justify that? It doesn't make much sense for the barbarian's rage to not effect their punches.

Example 2; moving away from unarmed strikes specifically, and using a different example of an ability that deals flat damage. A Hexblade Warlock with the Maddening Hex invocation. Hexblade's Curse grants a bonus to damage rolls, Maddening Hex is an attack that deals damage equal to your Charisma modifier. Would the effect of Hexblade's Curse increase the damage of the Maddening Hex attack?

Strictly speaking, no. And there's not much else to say on the matter. I mean, someone could dig up some additional text to contradict this, but with the information at hand, it seems pretty incontrovertible. I think that's why your motives might have been questioned. Is what is really happening you hoping for an argument that you should be able to apply monk's dex to 1pt unarmed attack (to no real benefit over the damage roll you would have access to) or Hexblade's Curse damage to Maddening Hex? Because that is an instance where an answer for one certainly will not necessarily be the same for the other.

Im torn on this one; I can see arguments for and against.

I cant really see why there would be a meaningful difference at attack triggering a 'roll' of damage, and one that triggers a static amount (such as an unarmed strike).

Would I allow Hexblades Curse or Barbarian Rage bonus damage on the fixed damage dealt by succesful attack rolls with Unarmed strikes? Yeah I would.

Not sure that this is supposed to happen though.

Once we get to terms like 'meaningful' or 'supposed,' I feel that there's a difference. The 1 pt. for unarmed attacks feels like (although as pointed out, is never stated in the text) it is replacing a 1dX that otherwise would be there (so a 1d1, as Rukelnikov pointed out, and then it was counterpointed on actual-stated-rules grounds). It feels consistent to me to treat the unarmed attack as effectively a damage roll, despite it clearly not having a damage rolled. So I would rule (under DM prerogative) to allow the bonus damage to unarmed attack, with a separate ruling for things like Maddening Hex.

For what it's worth Crawford did weigh in on this saying it's still 1+str for a crit unarmed strike. No die to roll so no roll to double.

Well, that certainly seems to be what the book states, so in this case he simply chose not to override it /add clarification/declare the intended outcome regardless of text/ etc.

I do think that, in general, this is one of those cases where the game could have worked on clarity. Perhaps (credit to MaxWilson for this idea) bold-texting in-game jargon and replacing 'damage roll' with damage, which could have been distinct from the colloquial understanding of the term.

Kadesh

2019-03-08, 12:31 PM

Yes, it does.

Rukelnikov

2019-03-08, 12:38 PM

Yes, it does.

You've still never provided proof

Misterwhisper

2019-03-08, 12:47 PM

Damage that is not rolled is not a damage roll.

An unarmed strikes does damage of 1 + Str if someone is not given a special ability like a monk or having some other means.

JC has already stated that a crit unarmed is still just 1 + Str because you did not roll damage.

If dice are not rolled for damage things that add to a dice roll are not added.

No, Armor of Agathys does not get a damage bonus because it is not rolled.

Also if something does not call for an attack roll it is not an attack unless specified. Ex. Grappling is an attack because it says it is, but Magic Missile is not because there is no attack roll.

This is just a lame way to get evidence for a thread being trolled and soon to be trolled here.

Kadesh

2019-03-08, 01:00 PM

You've still never provided proof

I disagree that the "proofs" you've provided say what you want them to do so.

Willie the Duck

2019-03-08, 01:06 PM

NaughtyTiger

2019-03-08, 01:07 PM

I do think it is odd that the secondary attack of Green Flame Blade is:
not a damage roll for levels 1-4, so no bonus applies
a damage roll for levels 5+, so a bonus may apply

Don't take the bait, Rukelnikov. I just checked your contribution to the thread. You never provided any proofs*, for him to disagree with, so he clearly didn't even read the thread.
If someone doesn't provide proof supporting their argument but demands proof in return, then they may be the one doing the baiting.

stoutstien

2019-03-08, 01:10 PM

I do think it is odd that the secondary attack of Green Flame Blade is:
not a damage roll for levels 1-4, so no bonus applies
a damage roll for levels 5+, so a bonus may apply
Or tempest cleric turns a a roll into a fixed amount and suddenly you can add certain effects

NaughtyTiger

2019-03-08, 01:12 PM

Or tempest cleric turns a a roll into a fixed amount and suddenly you can add certain effects

Yeah, that kind of thing adds to my unease.

Shuruke

2019-03-08, 01:13 PM

For what it's worth Crawford did weigh in on this saying it's still 1+str for a crit unarmed strike. No die to roll so no roll to double.

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/736085559597096960

Also there's been a discussion about this on RPG Stack Exchange.

https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/57051/does-an-unarmed-strike-get-double-damage-on-a-critical-hit

Ok cool than that should settle that they aren't Can be rolls or else on crit it would work other way

Kadesh

2019-03-08, 01:25 PM

Don't take the bait, Rukelnikov. I just checked your contribution to the thread. You never provided any proofs*, for him to disagree with, so he clearly didn't even read the thread.
*Yes, you stated "Fists essentially deal a d1 damage." but since essentially isn't a game term, so it was meaningless.

Oh look, cheer leaders. Cute. provide your proofs here, then.

You state something's RAW, you better have RAW to back it up. There isn't a Rule that is written to back up your position, only an inference, but there is a rule to back up mine. Which has been quoted under the Damage Rolls rules under Combat. You have told me that my RAW isn't RAW because you don't want to agree to it, but don't actually have "RAW" to reinforce yours.

Enjoy.

Willie the Duck

2019-03-08, 01:30 PM

If someone doesn't provide proof supporting their argument but demands proof in return, then they may be the one doing the baiting.

But he didn't really make an argument. He actually just made a vaguely nonsensical comment at the top of the thread that he never follow up on. Not that that's a good thing, mind you, but it doesn't really negate his point that Kadesh swooped in with "Yes, it does." without providing an argument.

Oh look, cheer leaders. Cute. provide your proofs here, then.

You state something's RAW, you better have RAW to back it up. There isn't a Rule that is written to back up your position, only an inference, but there is a rule to back up mine. Which has been quoted under the Damage Rolls rules under Combat. You have told me that my RAW isn't RAW because you don't want to agree to it, but don't actually have "RAW" to reinforce yours.

Enjoy.

You clearly haven't read the thread the, because I never once addressed RAW. However, you stated, "Yes, it does." As you just stated, burden of proof goes to the one making a claim. Show us this rule you say has been quoted.

NaughtyTiger

2019-03-08, 01:41 PM

But he didn't really make an argument.
...
As you just stated, burden of proof goes to the one making a claim. Show us this rule you say has been quoted.

With all due respect. You suggested Ruki not take the bait... and you jumped right in.
The fight between Ruki and Kadesh is a leftover from the PAM thread I referenced further up. See post #5 (but you have read this thread, so you already know post #5)

Do you really want to derail this thread like we (Ruki, kadesh, me, corp, ...) did the last one?

Trampaige

2019-03-08, 01:49 PM

I do think it is odd that the secondary attack of Green Flame Blade is:
not a damage roll for levels 1-4, so no bonus applies
a damage roll for levels 5+, so a bonus may apply

Eldritch blast can be used with Warcaster until lvl5, when it becomes multi-target possible and no longer qualifies. There are some odd interactions, but the game is massive so that's going to happen.

For tempest clerics, "you can use your Channel Divinity to deal maximum damage, instead of rolling." So RAW, you're not rolling.

Also for god sake, don't do this again. I started the whole thing off in the first thread about AoA and washed my hands of it after a page.

Xeko

2019-03-08, 01:53 PM

What about the case of Blowgun +1, which gives a "+1 bonus to attack and damage rolls"? Is that 1 damage, or 2?

Kadesh

2019-03-08, 01:57 PM

Eldritch blast can be used with Warcaster until lvl5, when it becomes multi-target possible and no longer qualifies. There are some odd interactions, but the game is massive so that's going to happen.

For tempest clerics, "you can use your Channel Divinity to deal maximum damage, instead of rolling." So RAW, you're not rolling.

Also for god sake, don't do this again. I started the whole thing off in the first thread about AoA and washed my hands of it after a page.

You quoted the rule that specifically stated you do not roll. Why is that not written elsewhere?

NaughtyTiger

2019-03-08, 02:09 PM

What about the case of Blowgun +1, which gives a "+1 bonus to attack and damage rolls"? Is that 1 damage, or 2?

I assume you mean, Does a critical hit with a +X weapon double the +X damage bonus?
No, the +X damage bonus is not doubled with a critical hit.

Xeko

2019-03-08, 02:16 PM

I assume you mean, Does a critical hit with a +X weapon double the +X damage bonus?
No, the +X damage bonus is not doubled with a critical hit.

No, I was asking all the people saying "if you dont roll, then it's not a damage roll" whether or not a Blowgun +1 even gets the +1 damage in that case. In a way I was implying that the wording of Blowgun +1 further suggests that flat damage effects do constitute damage rolls. Similar to the monk ability I referenced in my original post. Just further supporting evidence.

stoutstien

2019-03-08, 02:18 PM

What about the case of Blowgun +1, which gives a "+1 bonus to attack and damage rolls"? Is that 1 damage, or 2?
Blowguns are weird. RTMS would say 2 damage per hit but raw/rai aren't clear

NaughtyTiger

2019-03-08, 02:23 PM

No, I was asking all the people saying "if you dont roll, then it's not a damage roll" whether or not a Blowgun +1 even gets the +1 damage in that case. In a way I was implying that the wording of Blowgun +1 further suggests that flat damage effects do constitute damage rolls. Similar to the monk ability I referenced in my original post. Just further supporting evidence.

Why wouldn't it get the +1 damage regardless of whether it is a roll or not?

If you asked about +1 net, then I would grumble and say no, the net doesn't do 1 damage.

Xeko

2019-03-08, 02:35 PM

Why wouldn't it get the +1 damage regardless of whether it is a roll or not?

If you asked about +1 net, then I would grumble and say no, the net doesn't do 1 damage.

I completely agree, but others are arguing that if you dont roll to determine damage then it doesnt count as a damage roll and the +1 effect specifically says +1 to attack and damage rolls. So I'm using the existence of a +1 blowgun to say that yes, flat damage amounts do count as damage rolls.

n00b

2019-03-08, 02:51 PM

You state something's RAW, you better have RAW to back it up. There isn't a Rule that is written to back up your position, only an inference, but there is a rule to back up mine. Which has been quoted under the Damage Rolls rules under Combat. You have told me that my RAW isn't RAW because you don't want to agree to it, but don't actually have "RAW" to reinforce yours.

So you can quote your rule? Like others have done to back their cases? Because I haven't seen you do it yet. You reference where it can be found, which is nice. But not everyone has a DMG. Why not show us specifically the rule you're misinterpreting?

Kadesh

2019-03-08, 03:02 PM

Players Handbook.

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
So, spells which specify they deal damage falls under the rules for Damage rolls. If there is an exception for those spells which deal damage but do not roll, it is not stated as being anything other than a damage roll.

So, a spell, like Armor of Agathys, which specifies the damage it deals. It states you roll the damage die or dice (none), add the modifiers, and then apply the damage.

Now, you could make a point that you add the modifiers after the roll but before applying the damage, in which case I'd say that is a degree of interpretation. But quite categorically stated above, it states that damage dealing spells are damage rolls.

The exception to this is that of the Tempest Cleric explicitly calling out that it not a Roll. Wording missing from others.

Rukelnikov

2019-03-08, 03:07 PM

I disagree that the "proofs" you've provided say what you want them to do so.

Im pretty sure I haven't contributed to this thread in the least.

Don't take the bait, Rukelnikov. I just checked your contribution to the thread. You never provided any proofs*, for him to disagree with, so he clearly didn't even read the thread.
*Yes, you stated "Fists essentially deal a d1 damage." but since essentially isn't a game term, so it was meaningless.

Yup, that was just my interpretation, but then I realized it was wrong since a unarmed crit also deals 1+Str, if it was a hidden d1 it should do 2+Str.

Kadesh

2019-03-08, 03:09 PM

Im pretty sure I haven't contributed to this thread in the least.

Wasn't suggesting you had, either.

Rukelnikov

2019-03-08, 03:18 PM

Wasn't suggesting you had, either.

disagreeing with my "proofs" certainly suggets that there were some to begin with :smallbiggrin:

Kadesh

2019-03-08, 03:23 PM

Edit: wooooosh

Yunru

2019-03-08, 04:12 PM

Yup, that was just my interpretation, but then I realized it was wrong since a unarmed crit also deals 1+Str, if it was a hidden d1 it should do 2+Str.

To be fair, it's a pretty stupid, not to mention officially sanctioned unofficial, ruling that it doesn't do 2+Str on a crit.

NaughtyTiger

2019-03-08, 04:55 PM

To be fair, it's a pretty stupid, not to mention officially sanctioned unofficial, ruling that it doesn't do 2+Str on a crit.

why do you consider it a stupid ruling?

it that cuz you feel flat damage should be doubled?
it is cuz you feel that unarmed is a d1?
other?

Yunru

2019-03-08, 05:00 PM

why do you consider it a stupid ruling?

it that cuz you feel flat damage should be doubled?
it is cuz you feel that unarmed is a d1?
other?

Because it causes a ****e tonne of inconsistencies (see: +1 blowguns), is less fun (a major sticking point), and makes them work differently from every other weapon (without anything to call it out).

Rukelnikov

2019-03-08, 05:20 PM

Because it causes a ****e tonne of inconsistencies (see: +1 blowguns), is less fun (a major sticking point), and makes them work differently from every other weapon (without anything to call it out).

Thing is they are different because they are not weapons. The rule that adds attriube to weapon damage (pg 13 or 14 PHB) states that it adds it to weapons, thus after errata unarmed strikes needed a separate rule, since they are not weapons, and since the rule doesn't call for any dice to be rolled, they don't get anything.

It has never happened at my table, but I'd definitely double it, even when it makes almost no difference.

stoutstien

2019-03-08, 05:25 PM

To be fair, it's a pretty stupid, not to mention officially sanctioned unofficial, ruling that it doesn't do 2+Str on a crit.
What if we did 1d4-2+ mod for unarmed strikes?

Misterwhisper

2019-03-08, 05:35 PM

What if we did 1d4-2+ mod for unarmed strikes?

Then people who took feats, have natural attacks or play a low level monk get cheated.

Man_Over_Game

2019-03-08, 05:39 PM

Then people who took feats, have natural attacks or play a low level monk get cheated.

Tavern Brawler is the closest thing to a feat specific to unarmed strikes, and the 1d4 damage is only part of the benefit.

Tavern Brawler, right now, turns your 1 Unarmed Strike damage to a 2.5 average. It increases your unarmed strikes by 1.5 damage.

With the proposed example, it shifts it from 0.5 damage to 2.5 damage. It would increase your unarmed strikes by 2 damage.

I'm not sure how it'd subtract from existing Unarmed Strike upgrades.

stoutstien

2019-03-08, 07:03 PM

Tavern Brawler is the closest thing to a feat specific to unarmed strikes, and the 1d4 damage is only part of the benefit.

Tavern Brawler, right now, turns your 1 Unarmed Strike damage to a 2.5 average. It increases your unarmed strikes by 1.5 damage.

With the proposed example, it shifts it from 0.5 damage to 2.5 damage. It would increase your unarmed strikes by 2 damage.

I'm not sure how it'd subtract from existing Unarmed Strike upgrades.

I could have said 1d2+ mod but some Reason my head just went to 1d4-2 due to thinking about basic dice set

ThePolarBear

2019-03-08, 07:18 PM

To be fair, it's a pretty stupid, not to mention officially sanctioned unofficial, ruling that it doesn't do 2+Str on a crit.

It's a rule, not a ruling. "1" is still not a notation of a die, and the only advantage of a crit, in general and regarding damage, is to roll any dice two times. Were it to be 1d1, then you would have all the reasons in the world.

"In these rules, the different dice are referred to by the letter d followed by the number of sides"

bid

2019-03-08, 07:40 PM

The fight between Ruki and Kadesh is a leftover from the PAM thread I referenced further up.
That would break the forum rules.

External/Personal Baggage
Each thread should exist in a vacuum, free from outside influences—especially those outside of these boards. What this means is that you can't carry over anger from a debate in another thread into a new discussion, and you can't harass anyone over anything they did in another thread, on another website's board, or in real life. This is not the forum to air the personal or relationship grievances against other posters - please do not bring your relationship (or former relationship) conflicts to this forum. If you can't check your baggage at the door, you'll end up earning an Infraction.

BurgerBeast

2019-03-08, 08:19 PM

The RAW are pretty clear, IMO. I agree with many, in that there are some good reasons to think that at least some flat damage effects ought to double on crits, and I consider unarmed damage to be one such effect - however this is clearly not RAW. Further, this does seem like an oversight by the design team. I can’t imagine that a barbarian’s rage damage was intended to not apply to unarmed strike damage.

I agree that it would be a good houserule to replace 1 with 1d1.

Xeko

2019-03-08, 09:14 PM

Rukelnikov

2019-03-08, 11:43 PM

Mike Mearls and Jeremy Crawford have confirmed that Barbarians DO get their rage bonus on unarmed strikes. Separately from that, Jeremy Crawford confirmed that critical hits with unarmed strikes do NOT deal additional damage. How can both of these things be true? The only possible reasoning as a) fists are some kind of exception, that is not explicitly stated anywhere in the rules, or b) flat damage amounts are indeed "damage rolls". So, with that in mind, let's return to official rules on damage rolls.

Now, to get all hyper sensitive about grammar and syntax, which may ruffle some feathers with it's pretentiousness, but I'm just trying to explore all possible explanations.

"...specifies the damage it deals." Period, end of sentence. It's not a comma, or semicolon, which would be more grammatically correct if the next sentence or clause was necessary for the understanding of this initial thought. "You roll the damage die or dice," that they specify die or dice clearly indicates this could potentially be any number of dice, depending on the attack in question... and last I checked, zero falls under the category of "any number". It is my interpretation that it is possible to make a damage roll that calls for no dice at all, and is just a flat number. In my opinion, all damage is considered a damage roll.

But, reading through this thread as I have, it seems that the common sentiment is different. Most people seem to be of the mindset that yes, Barbarian should get the rage bonus, but the Warlock should NOT get Hexblade's Curse bonus to their Green Flame Blade or Maddening Hex attacks. My question then is, why not? What's the difference? We've established that punches are NOT 1d1's, so what is the distinction?

Now to turn the argument against my own position. If I believe that all damage constitutes a damage roll, when would you NOT get the benefits of Barbarian rage or Hexblade's Curse or other similar effects? Well, whenever you aren't the one doing the rolling. In an example earlier in the thread, I mentioned pushing an enemy off a ledge. Who rolls the fall damage in that case? Typically the DM, not you. I would argue that some effects, like Armor of Agathys, is similarly a source of damage that is triggered by the DM or enemy, and not by the player. Generally speaking, I feel like it's pretty intuitive when you are rolling damage on an enemy, versus when an enemy is rolling damage on itself.

I must say that the 0 dice damage roll makes some kind of sense, mechanically speaking.

I disagree though that every instance of damage implies a damage roll, and here is the reason:

The rule says "Each weapon, spell, and harmful monster ability specifies the damage it deals." So, technically speaking, this rule doesn't tell us how Maddening Hex, or Cloak of Flies deal damage, since they are not weapons, spells, or harmful monster abilities.

And so this lead me to read those Invocations, and realized something I would have glossed over otherwise:

Maddening Hex:
"When you do so, you deal psychic damage to the cursed target and each creature of your choice that you can see within 5 feet of it. The psychic damage equals your Charisma modifier (minimum of 1 damage)."

Cloak of Flies
"Any other creature that starts its turn in the aura takes poison damage equal to your Charisma modifier (minimum of 0 damage)."

Notice the difference between the 2 sentences. In Maddening Hex, you are dealing damage, in Cloak of Flies, you are not, the other creatures are taking damage.

Realizing this made me go back to Armor of Agathys, and lo and behold:

"If a creature hits you with a melee attack while you have these hit points, the creature takes 5 cold damage."

You are not dealing damage, again, the other creatures are taking damage.

I'm gonna sweep the books now, looking for things that deal damage but are not weapons, spells, or harmful monster abilities, since those are the only cases covered by the damage roll rules.(First thing that comes to mind are acid and alchemist fire, but I wanna avoid the discussion of whether or not they are or should be considered weapons)

EDIT: I realized this may bring more confusion than clarity, and I may be going too far in RAW and away from RAI, or RAS actually. Take Blight for instance:

"[...] The target must make a Constitution saving throw. The target takes 8d8 necrotic damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one. This spell has no effect on undead or constructs.

If you target a plant creature or a magical plant, it makes the saving throw with disadvantage, and the spell deals maximum damage to it.[...]"

The spell deals maximum damage? The spell? Not you? What are the implications of such a line?

I'll keep at it and update if I find anything interesting.

BurgerBeast

2019-03-09, 03:36 AM

qube

2019-03-09, 04:07 AM

TL;DR; common sense. people. Don't look for exceptions and then try to paint them as rules.
---
in my games, I also rule that the "1" of unarmed damage, or the damage from certain animals, is an exception, and counts as a damage roll. As such, you get an extra damage on crit, and effects that work on damage rolls (a.k.a. effects that would have worked if they were attacking with a 1d4 weapon) also affect them.

While it might or might not be RAW, in my oppinion it is clear, that that "1" is the placeholder for a damage roll, of the smallest die possible. If we could deal fractional damage, it's quite possible the unarmed strike or cats, would have dealt ((1d4)/4) damage or something in that line.,

After all. RAF, nobody wants their summoned weasel to roll a natural 20 only to have the DM note that this doesn't have any extra effect, just becasue the weasel doe a static 1 damage.

HOWEVER, by nature of this being the exception, this rule doesn't apply when something just does static damage. Again, IMO, it's clear that 'your charisma mod as damage' is NOT a replacement of a roll, for 'your charisma mod amount of lowest level dice'.

thrdeye

2019-03-09, 04:13 AM

Right: the same ability grants the two abilities in discussion, so it’s reasonable the two anticipate each being in play.

Damage rolls, in the RAW, is used as common English, not as a game term. The first time we see this is in the first time the RAW bring up rolling for damage: it’s the third phase of making an attack:

“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.”

Note it stated “you roll damage” not “you make a Damage Roll.” If Damage Roll was a game term that meant “damage”, then it would use Damage Roll, and not the common English of “roll damage.”

Further, the rule even tells us you don’t roll damage if the attack states otherwise (such as the Unarmed Strike damage that tells you to use 1+Str). So, those instances of being told “the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise” aren’t “damage rolls.”

Agreed. I can appreciate the effort some have gone to in trying to interpret "damage roll" as a strictly defined key phrase like "weapon attack," but in 5e such phrases are the exception and not the rule. "Damage roll" has a clear meaning when taken as plain English. There's little to gain and much to lose in the way of clarity by using "damage roll" when "damage" would suffice.

While the designers can admittedly be unclear I have a hard time believing that the intended interpretation of, say, Hexblade's Curse would by design involve the sort of logical leaps and convoluted reasoning going on in this thread. I have a harder time believing that intention would have never been explicitly clarified throughout years of being misunderstood by the overwhelming majority of the game's audience.

The simplest answer is often best.

Xeko

2019-03-09, 05:27 AM

It does not indicate “any number” of dice. It clearly indicates one (die) or more than one (dice).

Zero falls under the category of any number. But the text indicate one or more than one die. Zero does not fall under the category of “one or more than one.”

That's not exactly true. I'll use a real world example. I was in a car accident recently, and the car was totaled. In the transfer of title paperwork for the insurance company, the instructions told me to surrender my key or keys. I did not have any key to the vehicle, I had left it with the inspector that had determined it was totaled to begin with. Does that mean I can't complete my paperwork? Because I don't have any keys to include in the "place key or keys here" envelope? Of course not. Because the terminology is of a vague number of keys, that potentially includes the number zero. As is normal for the english language.

Xeko

2019-03-09, 05:34 AM

Agreed. I can appreciate the effort some have gone to in trying to interpret "damage roll" as a strictly defined key phrase like "weapon attack," but in 5e such phrases are the exception and not the rule. "Damage roll" has a clear meaning when taken as plain English. There's little to gain and much to lose in the way of clarity by using "damage roll" when "damage" would suffice.

Because the term "damage roll" is not intended to be an official term? Because "damage" and "damage roll" were always meant to be used interchangeably? Because depending on the verb used in a sentence "damage" could be either a noun or an adjective. For example, "dealing damage" makes linguistic sense. "Performing damage" does not. "Performing a damage roll", however, works again. To suggest that other forms of damage may benefit from abilities that grant bonuses to damage rolls does not necessarily conflict with a common English reading of the terminology.

sophontteks

2019-03-09, 05:49 AM

ProsecutorGodot

2019-03-09, 07:04 AM

So the official term "damage roll" was not supposed to be an official term. It's just that Jeremy's fingers slipped when he was writing 5e and he decided to leave the word roll there for kicks.

And multiple times too, with similar effects and across several printed books.

Seems clear to me, if you roll for damage it's a damage roll.

RSP

2019-03-09, 08:02 AM

Because the term "damage roll" is not intended to be an official term? Because "damage" and "damage roll" were always meant to be used interchangeably? Because depending on the verb used in a sentence "damage" could be either a noun or an adjective. For example, "dealing damage" makes linguistic sense. "Performing damage" does not. "Performing a damage roll", however, works again. To suggest that other forms of damage may benefit from abilities that grant bonuses to damage rolls does not necessarily conflict with a common English reading of the terminology.

If it’s not a game term, then it’s common English. In common English, it means to roll dice to find out how much damage is done.

Further, the rules tells us rolling for damage is different than not rolling for damage, in the Making An Attack rules, the third and final step:

“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 clearly states you either 1) roll damage, or 2) use the rules of the attack that specify otherwise. One or the other.

Kadesh

2019-03-09, 09:37 AM

RSP

2019-03-09, 10:20 AM

Edit: probably going to rustle some feathers with that.

I'll leave it and instead state that you are free to ignore the words you want to, and I'll ignore the ones I want, because RAW is nonsense, and you can no more assert RAW than I can. Ergo, we are both correct and wrong, and we can't convince one another.

RAW is clear:

“Game Dice
The game uses polyhedral dice with different numbers of sides. You can find dice like these in game stores and in many bookstores.
In these rules, the different dice are referred to by the letter d followed by the number of sides: d4, d6, d8, d10, d12, and d20. For instance, a d6 is a six-sided die (the typical cube that many games use)...

...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.

The same d notation appears in the expressions “1d3” and “1d2.” To simulate the roll of 1d3, roll a d6 and divide the number rolled by 2 (round up). To simulate the roll of 1d2, roll any die and assign a 1 or 2 to the roll depending on whether it was odd or even. (Alternatively, if the number rolled is more than half the number of sides on the die, it’s a 2.)“

This is pretty clear in what’s considered a “roll”. Note this means 1 is different than 1d1; per the cited RAW, if it’s not in the XdY notation, it’s not a roll (for those who think Unarmed Strike’s 1+Str mod is equal to 1d1).

So again, a damage roll is “damage determined from a XdY dice roll.”

I don’t know how you can read these rules, which tell us what a roll is, and conclude anything other than “a roll in 5e involves the XdY and the rolling of corresponding dice (or die).”

Kadesh

2019-03-09, 10:53 AM

RSP

2019-03-09, 12:01 PM

I don't know how you can read a rule which states that Spells which deal damage are damage rolls, and conclude that it's not damage, but hey. You keep pretending your words are relevant, but mine aren't, and I'm sure you'll be able to change my mind eventually.

Just keep trying.

“Damage Rolls”, which is the “rule” I’m assuming you’re referring to, applies to damage effects that include rolling dice, per the RAW, as shown in what was cited.

The RAW states what a “roll” is:

“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.”

The RAW states when to use rolls for damage and when not to:

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

At no point does the RAW say “Spells which deal damage are damage rolls” as you claim.

Note I cited actual rules. Feel free to cite the RAW to back up your claims.

ThePolarBear

2019-03-09, 12:02 PM

I don't know how you can read a rule which states that Spells which deal damage are damage rolls

I would like to read such a ridicolous rule. :P

Kadesh

2019-03-09, 12:30 PM

At no point does the RAW say “Spells which deal damage are damage rolls” as you claim.
No, you're right. The rules under the heading "Damage Rolls" which states "Each ... spell ... specifies the damage it deals. You roll the damage die or dice, add any modifiers, and apply the damage to your target" doesn't apply to Armor of Agathys, because Armor of Agathys doesn't specify the damage it deals. Rolleyes.gif

Note I cited actual rules. Feel free to cite the RAW to back up your claims.
Cite the rules which states that damage which does not roll a dice is not a damage roll. Feel free to do that. The fact you haven't, and cannot, quite categorically suggests you are unable to do. The fact that you are quite happy to sift through all of the material to try and back up your position, and have yet to provide a written rule that actually states such a thing only says to me that this thing you are suggesting, is not RAW. Meanwhile, I have RAW which states that spells which deal damage are included under the heading of "Damage Rolls".

Xeko

2019-03-09, 01:03 PM

I would like to read such a ridicolous rule. :P

He is referring to the rules for combat, under the Damage Rolls heading. The first sentence is "Every weapon attack, spell, and monster ability specifies how much damage it does." He is interpreting that sentence as a complete thought, independent of the context of the rest of the paragraph. So when a spell says "deals 5 damage", that is a an example of a spell specifying the damage it does, and that is described under the "damage rolls" heading in the rules, which suggests it is a damage roll.

The next sentence of that paragraph, however, describes rolling die or dice as appropriate to the attack in question. But, as I pointed out earlier, if the two sentences were meant to be taken as a single unit, they would have been written as a single sentence, with a semicolon between the two clauses. That "attack specify damage" is it's own complete sentence under the "damage roll" heading, and the very first sentence no less, makes his interpretation grammatically valid, at the very least.

qube

2019-03-09, 01:03 PM

RAW is clear:

... When you need to roll dice, ...

... This is pretty clear in what’s considered a “roll” ... I don't want to be anoying, but it isn't. At least not from your quote. The first instance of "roll" is a verb in the english langauge, while the second is a noun game term. Consider
(In the english language), you can attack someone with magic missle ( #IAttackTheDarkness )
Magic missle isn't an attack

n00b

2019-03-09, 01:05 PM

Stuff

I begin to think English is not your native language. Because those words don't mean what you think they do.

ThePolarBear

2019-03-09, 01:23 PM

He is referring to the rules for combat, under the Damage Rolls heading. The first sentence is "Every weapon attack, spell, and monster ability specifies how much damage it does." He is interpreting that sentence as a complete thought, independent of the context of the rest of the paragraph. So when a spell says "deals 5 damage", that is a an example of a spell specifying the damage it does, and that is described under the "damage rolls" heading in the rules, which suggests it is a damage roll.

The next sentence of that paragraph, however, describes rolling die or dice as appropriate to the attack in question. But, as I pointed out earlier, if the two sentences were meant to be taken as a single unit, they would have been written as a single sentence, with a semicolon between the two clauses. That "attack specify damage" is it's own complete sentence under the "damage roll" heading, and the very first sentence no less, makes his interpretation grammatically valid, at the very least.

I assure you that i get what the general gist is.
I assure you i have no intention to enter such a discussion.

I still find ridiculous to write "Spells [...] are damage rolls" as something that is written in RAW. A mistake, i'm sure (Spells HAVE damage rolls) . But he made it twice in this thread. And each time i look at it, i have a chuckle. A good faith one, mind you. But i still chuckle. Something i wanted to share.

Xeko

2019-03-09, 01:40 PM

I still find ridiculous to write "Spells [...] are damage rolls" as something that is written in RAW. A mistake, i'm sure (Spells HAVE damage rolls) . But he made it twice in this thread. And each time i look at it, i have a chuckle. A good faith one, mind you. But i still chuckle. Something i wanted to share.

Fair enough. Saying spells are damage rolls is simplistic. I would argue damage of any kind is a damage roll (though not necessarily a damage roll made by the player, i.e. "deal damage to creature" vs "creature takes damage"). But not every spell does damage at all.

BurgerBeast

2019-03-09, 02:08 PM

That's not exactly true. I'll use a real world example. I was in a car accident recently, and the car was totaled. In the transfer of title paperwork for the insurance company, the instructions told me to surrender my key or keys. I did not have any key to the vehicle, I had left it with the inspector that had determined it was totaled to begin with.

It’s very clear.

One key -> surrender it.

More than one key -> surrender them.

That’s all. It says what is says and nothing more. There is no instruction about what to do with zero keys.

Does that mean I can't complete my paperwork?

Not sure why anyone would think that.

Because I don't have any keys to include in the "place key or keys here" envelope? Of course not.

Agreed.

Because the terminology is of a vague number of keys, that potentially includes the number zero.

First of all, it’s not vague. It’s precisely the set of natural numbers. Nothing vague about it. The mere fact that there there might be cases to which it doesn’t apply does not make it “vague.” It just makes it not apply to some cases.

Second of all, you can’t say: it’s vague therefore zero might apply. Just because something is vague does not mean it means anything to anyone.

They’re keys. The instruction is to surrender them.

Obviously, it doesn’t apply to -4 keys. That’s because you can’t have -4 keys.

Obviously, it doesn’t include zero keys, because you can’t surrender zero keys.

Does it apply to fractions of keys? It clearly does not say. This does not mean it does apply, nor does it mean it does not apply. It means you clearly do not know and need to ask, at which point a “yes” or a “no” would be a clear answer.

None of these are vague. They are all crystal clear.

Kadesh

2019-03-09, 02:15 PM

I begin to think English is not your native language. Because those words don't mean what you think they do.

Ah interesting way of actually challenging someone. "Oh, you don't understand language." Whatever next, Godwin's law?

Xeko

2019-03-09, 02:25 PM

First of all, it’s not vague. It’s precisely the set of natural numbers. Nothing vague about it. The mere fact that there there might be cases to which it doesn’t apply does not make it “vague.” It just makes it not apply to some cases.

Right. There are situations where dice may not apply. Under the "Damage Roll" heading of the rule book. Glad we could clear that up.

n00b

2019-03-09, 02:33 PM

Ah interesting way of actually challenging someone. "Oh, you don't understand language." Whatever next, Godwin's law?

If it applies then sure. Just like the previous argument does.

Full disclosure: I don't know what Godwin's Law is but I'm sure it's just as absurd as your interpretations of the English language.

Xeko

2019-03-09, 02:35 PM

If it applies then sure. Just like the previous argument does.

Full disclosure: I don't know what Godwin's Law is but I'm sure it's just as absurd as your interpretations of the English language.

Godwin's Law states that any internet argument will invariably end with one side calling the other side a Nazi. It is common sentiment that whoever falls to that level first is the loser.

n00b

2019-03-09, 02:39 PM

Godwin's Law states that any internet argument will invariably end with one side calling the other side a Nazi. It is common sentiment that whoever falls to that level first is the loser.

I guess since he implied it by mentioning it then I win? And I stand corrected. His claims aren't quite that absurd.

bid

2019-03-09, 02:40 PM

If it applies then sure. Just like the previous argument does.

Full disclosure: I don't know what Godwin's Law is but I'm sure it's just as absurd as your interpretations of the English language.
Once you know, keep it off the thread.:smallbiggrin:

Because invoking Godwin's to provoke Godwin's is pretty passive-aggressive (since the T word is taboo).

Kadesh

2019-03-09, 02:41 PM

If it applies then sure. Just like the previous argument does.
I'm going to say you're quite incapable of making any comments regarding an individual's command of language, if you're unable to see how the bit detailing how the bit detailing damage rolls provides the information for how to resolve a spell dealing damage, like Armor of Agathys is relevant to discussion.

Edit;

I guess since he implied it by mentioning it then I win? And I stand corrected. His claims aren't quite that absurd.
Confirmed to be in no position.

Full disclosure: I don't know what Godwin's Law is but I'm sure it's just as absurd as your interpretations of the English language.
If only we were connected to some vast repository of knowledge which could answer a question for us.

Xeko

2019-03-09, 02:42 PM

I guess since he implied it by mentioning it then I win?
I dunno about that. He didnt call you a nazi himself, he expressed exasperation at your argument. "Oh, I guess because I dont agree, I must not speak English, huh? What next, you gonna call me a Nazi?"

BurgerBeast

2019-03-09, 02:49 PM

Right. There are situations where dice may not apply. Under the "Damage Roll" heading of the rule book. Glad we could clear that up.

There’s no reason to try to jump over several steps in the logic, nor to put words in my mouth. We can go slow and maybe we’ll end up agreeing.

Do you think that “roll the damage die or dice” applies to zero dice, or not?

Xeko

2019-03-09, 02:51 PM

There’s no reason to try to jump over several steps in the logic, nor to put words in my mouth. We can go slow and maybe we’ll end up agreeing.

Do you think that “roll the damage die or dice” applies to zero dice, or not?

I believe there is nothing about the statement that precludes zero dice from being included in the heading.

BurgerBeast

2019-03-09, 02:55 PM

I believe there is nothing about the statement that precludes zero dice from being included in the heading.

Edit:

What about the fact that zero dice cannot be rolled?

How about -4 dice?

n00b

2019-03-09, 02:56 PM

Once you know, keep it off the thread.:smallbiggrin:

Because invoking Godwin's to provoke Godwin's is pretty passive-aggressive (since the T word is taboo).

I didn't bring it up, but sure?

n00b

2019-03-09, 02:57 PM

If only we were connected to some vast repository of knowledge which could answer a question for us.

I figured given your previous claims it wasn't worth looking up. And again I was proven correct.

Xeko

2019-03-09, 02:57 PM

What about the fact that zero dice cannot be rolled?

Where does it say that dice must be rolled for it to be considered a damage roll?

Kadesh

2019-03-09, 03:00 PM

I figured given your previous claims it wasn't worth looking up. And again I was proven correct.
So, you wouldn't even spend 2 seconds to google something to enlighten your ignorance. Interesting outlook on life. Enjoy yourself, as you quite categorically do not have a dog in this fight.

BurgerBeast

2019-03-09, 03:04 PM

Where does it say that dice must be rolled for it to be considered a damage roll?

Is that really your position on this?

Where does it say it has to be damage? What Why can’t healing be considered a damage roll?

Is this the level we’re discussing at?

Xeko

2019-03-09, 03:07 PM

Edit:

What about the fact that zero dice cannot be rolled?

How about -4 dice?

Nice edit after the fact. But same answer. Where does it say dice must be rolled? It says to roll the dice. But just like my insurance company said to surrender the keys, it might not always be applicable. Still is a damage roll.

Kadesh

2019-03-09, 03:08 PM

Is that really your position on this?

Where does it say it has to be damage? What Why can’t healing be considered a damage roll?

Is this the level we’re discussing at?
Considering the argument is about what the rules are written as, yes.

n00b

2019-03-09, 03:08 PM

So, you wouldn't even spend 2 seconds to google something to enlighten your ignorance. Interesting outlook on life. Enjoy yourself, as you quite categorically do not have a dog in this fight.

Given the subject of what you brought up I'd hardly call it enlightenment. But if it works for you then go for it.

Xeko

2019-03-09, 03:09 PM

Is that really your position on this?

Where does it say it has to be damage? What Why can’t healing be considered a damage roll?

Is this the level we’re discussing at?

Healing cant be considered a damage roll, healing is specifically stated as it's own thing. Non-rolled damaging effects are NOT listed as their own thing, and are in fact mentioned under the Damage Roll heading.

Kadesh

2019-03-09, 03:10 PM

You've forced me into this n00b, I'm going to lower my level of involvement to a level you might actually understand.

no u

n00b

2019-03-09, 03:23 PM

no u

This is about as effective as any other argument you've made so far. Multiple people, including myself, have given you specific examples contradicting your claims. Yet you continue to back yourself into the corner. I even said on another thread that it doesn't break the game by any means. And if you want to play it that way at your table then that's fine. Do so and have a great time doing it. But to make the claim that's the way the rules are written just doesn't work.

bid

2019-03-09, 03:28 PM

I didn't bring it up, but sure?
No it wasn't you.

OTOH, you should ignore the derailing tantrum and try to be constructive. Since the OP got his answer, this thread has lost its raison d'être.

Rukelnikov

2019-03-09, 03:34 PM

Nice edit after the fact. But same answer. Where does it say dice must be rolled? It says to roll the dice. But just like my insurance company said to surrender the keys, it might not always be applicable. Still is a damage roll.

What is? The damage from Cloak of Flies? Where does it say its a damage roll?

PHB end of page 6:

"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"

Xeko

2019-03-09, 03:34 PM

No it wasn't you.

OTOH, you should ignore the derailing tantrum and try to be constructive. Since the OP got his answer, this thread has lost its raison d'être.

I mean, I have gotten a few different answers. Like a 60/40 (maybe 65/35) split between people saying no and yes. I have been convinced and personally believe one way. But theres hardly a consensus.

n00b

2019-03-09, 03:35 PM

No it wasn't you.

OTOH, you should ignore the derailing tantrum and try to be constructive. Since the OP got his answer, this thread has lost its raison d'être.

Yes, you are correct. And I'm not sure why I rise to his bait. Either way everything that needs or can be said to reason (for and against) has been.

Kadesh

2019-03-09, 03:37 PM

This is about as effective as any other argument you've made so far. Multiple people, including myself, have given you specific examples contradicting your claims. Yet you continue to back yourself into the corner. I even said on another thread that it doesn't break the game by any means. And if you want to play it that way at your table then that's fine. Do so and have a great time doing it. But to make the claim that's the way the rules are written just doesn't work.

But, they haven't, though? The argument's they're using aren't applicable. A rule telling you how to total dice rolls isn't applicable to things that are considered damage rolls. Damage Rolls includes rolling any number of dice specified (of which 0 is still a number; "0 (zero) is both a number[1] and the numerical digit used to represent that number in numerals."), and then that generic rule is used to total those.

What appears to be the case if that multiple people, including yourself, are under the misapprehension that a dice roll and a damage roll are the same thing, despite some damage rolls involving the rolling of dice. It's a case of basic logic comprehension, which you are unable to understand. And given the above lack of comprehension in general regarding as to what was being stated, that is pretty clear you either lack command of the language, or logic parsing. But what's not okay, dude, is to go around and start trying to insult people by suggesting that the do not speak a language properly, simply because you're apparently not capable of comprehending things.

You will also be able to reference your written rule by providing the page of the written rule stating, in writing, that not rolling dice when you deal damage is not a damage roll (such as the specific exception included in the Tempest Cleric rules). Because that will then be a rule that is written.

By now, I understand that someone continually pointing out the flaw in your argument that what you're stating is the Rules As Written does not actually exist in written form (except for a specific exception) is going to get you riled up, and you must post a pithy response in an attempt to save face, but seriously, don't bother. Don't even bother to respond in how I'm not riling you're up, and you're actually calm, because no-one gives a damn. You've had plenty of opportunity to provide your RAW, and you can't. You can only infer.

The only contribution you can positively make to this discussion now is to provide the above requested rule.

Alternatively, you can just be a ****, and try and get the last word by providing a veiled insult.

What is? The damage from Cloak of Flies? Where does it say its a damage roll?

PHB end of page 6:

"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"

Dice Roll =/= Damage Roll.

BurgerBeast

2019-03-09, 03:39 PM

Healing cant be considered a damage roll, healing is specifically stated as it's own thing. Non-rolled damaging effects are NOT listed as their own thing, and are in fact mentioned under the Damage Roll heading.

And what if healing were not “specifically stated as it’s own thing”...

Then, would it be reasonable to say that healing is a damage roll?

Rukelnikov

2019-03-09, 03:40 PM

Dice Roll =/= Damage Roll.

So what? Cloak of Flies is not a weapon, spell, or monster ability, it is not covered by the cited rule.

Is that a damage roll then?

Its not a one-off case either mind you, the game is riddled with them:

Radiance of the Dawn, Wrath of the Storm, Unbroken Air, Water Whip, Holy Nimbus, and many many more

Xeko

2019-03-09, 03:45 PM

What is? The damage from Cloak of Flies? Where does it say its a damage roll?

Cloak of Flies? No. I mean, it is, but not rolled by the player. Again, the wording "deal damage to creature" versus "creature takes damage". The DM, not the player, "rolls" the damage on that specific ability. But there are plenty of other effects that do not involve dice that are damage rolls. At least in my interpretation.

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

To reiterate. "Each weapon, spell, and harmful monster ability specifies the damage it deals." Period, end of sentence, as though it is a complete thought. Next sentence; "You roll the damage die or dice," as in any number of dice, potentially including zero. Though even if you argue it does not include zero, it doesnt say you MUST roll dice, so the first sentence, which just says attacks state how much damage they do, could be taken on it's own.

Rukelnikov

2019-03-09, 03:48 PM

Cloak of Flies? No. I mean, it is, but not rolled by the player. Again, the wording "deal damage to creature" versus "creature takes damage". The DM, not the player, "rolls" the damage on that specific ability. But there are plenty of other effects that do not involve dice that are damage rolls. At least in my interpretation.

I'm fine with that being your interpretation, but is there RAW that supports such an interpretation?

To reiterate. "Each weapon, spell, and harmful monster ability specifies the damage it deals." Period, end of sentence, as though it is a complete thought. Next sentence; "You roll the damage die or dice," as in any number of dice, potentially including zero. Though even if you argue it does not include zero, it doesnt say you MUST roll dice, so the first sentence, which just says attacks state how much damage they do, could be taken on it's own.

Cloak of Flies is none of those, and doesn't use the word roll at any time, what argument do you have for it being a damage roll?

Xeko

2019-03-09, 03:53 PM

And what if healing were not “specifically stated as it’s own thing”...

Then, would it be reasonable to say that healing is a damage roll?

In that totally hypothetical and not in any way reasonable scenario, yes. If healing were not mentioned anywhere in the basic rules, it could be argued that healing is a damage roll with a universal "multiply by negative 1" modifier applied to it. This would be incredibly unbalanced and would make no logical sense. The game would never have been released without a specific section in the rules for healing effects. But, if you know anything about game programming, you know that that is exactly how they do it for many RPGs. This isnt the "gotcha" moment you think it is.

thelastorphan

2019-03-09, 03:56 PM

Monsters can have class levels. Making all abilities that deal damage harmful monster abilities.

Xeko

2019-03-09, 03:58 PM

I'm fine with that being your interpretation, but is there RAW that supports such an interpretation?

Cloak of Flies is none of those, and doesn't use the word roll at any time, what argument do you have for it being a damage roll?

Well, seeing as nowhere in the core rules does it mention how damage is dealt in any fashion OTHER than under the "damage rolls" heading, it is my interpretation that all forms damage constitutes a damage roll, and it comes down to determining the specific source of the damage to determine whether or not bonuses to damage rolls are applicable. Cloak of Flies, being rolled by the DM, is not eligible for player generated bonuses to damage rolls. Hellish Rebuke or similar damage dealing reaction spell potentially is.

Rukelnikov

2019-03-09, 03:58 PM

Monsters can have class levels. Making all abilities that deal damage harmful monster abilities.

Then why differentiate weapons and spells? Monsters can wield weapons and cast spells too. Wouldn't is have been easier to put any harmful thing in the game? But they didn't...

Xeko

2019-03-09, 04:02 PM

Then why differentiate weapons and spells? Monsters can wield weapons and cast spells too. Wouldn't is have been easier to put any harmful thing in the game? But they didn't...

We are focusing on the passage out of context of the rest of the book. But if you are reading cover to cover, that passage is the very first mention that monsters even have harmful abilities. So listing out harmful effects, rather than using a generic term, serves to introduce the reader to the concept. It does not preclude harmful player abilities from also being considered harmful monster attacks.

Rukelnikov

2019-03-09, 04:03 PM

Well, seeing as nowhere in the core rules does it mention how damage is dealt in any fashion OTHER than under the "damage rolls" heading, it is my interpretation that all forms damage constitutes a damage roll, and it comes down to determining the specific source of the damage to determine whether or not bonuses to damage rolls are applicable.

So you are willfully ignoring parts of the rule you have been citing as gospel? Taking only what parts of it support your argument and disregarding the rest? That sounds more like pushing a specific view of the game than trying to find how it works RAW.

Cloak of Flies, being rolled by the DM, is not eligible for player generated bonuses to damage rolls. Hellish Rebuke or similar damage dealing reaction spell potentially is.

Cloak of Flies isn't rolled, there are no dice and the word roll isn't anywhere in its description, same with Holy Nimbus for instance.

Hellish Rebuke is a spell that tells you to roll dice to determine damage, that is squarely within what a damage roll is.

We are focusing on the passage out of context of the rest of the book. But if you are reading cover to cover, that passage is the very first mention that monsters even have harmful abilities. So listing out harmful effects, rather than using a generic term, serves to introduce the reader to the concept. It does not preclude harmful player abilities from also being considered harmful monster attacks.

Characters and monster are not equal in game terms. They are not built in a similar fashion either.

Also, no, monsters had been referenced before like for instance in the Beastmaster, which even references stats of said monsters.

Xeko

2019-03-09, 04:12 PM

So you are willfully ignoring parts of the rule you have been citing as gospel? Taking only what parts of it support your argument and disregarding the rest? That sounds more like pushing a specific view of the game than trying to find how it works RAW.

And what parts am I ignoring exactly? It says attacks specify damage. End of sentence. It says roll dice and add mods. It doesnt say you must roll dice, and nowhere in the heading does it say that if an attack's specified damage doesn't include dice then it doesnt count. A literal reading of the passage does not in any way indicate that a damage source must use dice to be considered a damage roll.

Or are you still on Cloak of Flies specifically, saying it is not a weapon attack, spell, or monster ability and therefore none of this applies. In which case, sure, theres an argument to be made over the definition of "monster abilities", but that's separate from this discussion.

Xeko

2019-03-09, 04:13 PM

Also, no, monsters had been referenced before like for instance in the Beastmaster, which even references stats of said monsters.

The rest of the chapter then, Jesus. It doesn't matter, my point is listing it out instead of clumping them together doesnt necessarily preclude one from including the other.

qube

2019-03-09, 04:16 PM

Hey, english isn't my native language either. But, here's the dealio: the damge roll chapter notes
"Magic weapons, special abilities, and other factors can grant a bonus to damage."
yet consistantly, magic weapons grant their damage to damage rolls, as do special abilities such as rage, manouvres, a bards inspiration, ...
"When attacking with a weapon, you add your ability modifier—the same modifier used for the attack roll— to the damage."
yet on STR & DEX explenations on page 14 AND STR & DEX explenations on page 176-177 AND various abilities such as thrown, finesse and martial arts, state it's the modifier is added to damage rolls.

Dispite my preconceived notion (and something that I will keep on doing) that you don't get these bonuses to static damages (excluding unarmed strike), RAW seems to use the terms interchangably.

Rukelnikov

2019-03-09, 04:27 PM

And what parts am I ignoring exactly? It says attacks specify damage. End of sentence.

Ignoring it only applies to weapons, spells and harmful monster abilities?

It says roll dice and add mods. It doesnt say you must roll dice, and nowhere in the heading does it say that if an attack's specified damage doesn't include dice then it doesnt count. A literal reading of the passage does not in any way indicate that a damage source must use dice to be considered a damage roll.

I already said 0 dice may be on to something, I had personally always thought 1 damage (like the blowgun) was a hidden 1d1, but I assume now that its 0 dice, and bonus of 1 to damage.

Or are you still on Cloak of Flies specifically, saying it is not a weapon attack, spell, or monster ability and therefore none of this applies. In which case, sure, theres an argument to be made over the definition of "monster abilities", but that's separate from this discussion.

Its not only Cloak of Flies, Holy Nimbus too, and there sure are others if you look for them, falling damage for instance is none of those (unless the planet counts as a monter and gravity is a harmful ability of it?)

BurgerBeast

2019-03-09, 04:29 PM

In that totally hypothetical and not in any way reasonable scenario, yes. If healing were not mentioned anywhere in the basic rules, it could be argued that healing is a damage roll with a universal "multiply by negative 1" modifier applied to it. This would be incredibly unbalanced and would make no logical sense. The game would never have been released without a specific section in the rules for healing effects. But, if you know anything about game programming, you know that that is exactly how they do it for many RPGs. This isnt the "gotcha" moment you think it is.

If healing were not mentioned in the rules at all, then on what basis would you argue that it’s a damage roll, or negative, or anything for that matter.

On what logical basis can you assert something with zero evidence?

Xeko

2019-03-09, 04:34 PM

If healing were not mentioned in the rules at all, then on what basis would you argue that it’s a damage roll, or negative, or anything for that matter.

On what logical basis can you assert something with zero evidence?

On the logical understanding of what healing is from a mechanical standpoint in a fictional world where life is quantified by numerical hit points. But again, understand that if such a rule book existed, and the damage rolls section was identical to how it is now, it would also mean that no healing effects could conceivably exist in 5e at all. The damage rolls section specifically says damage cannot be negative.

BurgerBeast

2019-03-09, 05:01 PM

On the logical understanding of what healing is from a mechanical standpoint in a fictional world where life is quantified by numerical hit points. But again, understand that if such a rule book existed, and the damage rolls section was identical to how it is now, it would also mean that no healing effects could conceivably exist in 5e at all. The damage rolls section specifically says damage cannot be negative.

So in a book that makes no mention of healing, it would (a) be logical to assert that healing exists, with no evidence, and (b) to assert that it specifically takes the form of negative damage rolls, with no evidence...

No evidence is required to add something to the game, and no evidence is required to insist on a particular mechanic for this thing that is not actually a part of the game?

But... evidence is required to claim that a roll is a roll.

Have I got this right?

Xeko

2019-03-09, 05:08 PM

So in a book that makes no mention of healing, it would (a) be logical to assert that healing exists, with no evidence
I had assumed all else equal. If the section on healing didnt exist, the healing spells and effects themselves still would. In which case there would be no "asserting with no evidence".

The entire rest of your post loses all credibility with that assumption established. You asked about the lack of healing rules, not lack of healing effects. If healing effects exist, and no such rules are established to explain how it works, you MUST use the only rule set that does exist. Which is the rules for damage rolls. There is no assertion here.

thelastorphan

2019-03-09, 05:14 PM

What is the rules definition of a monster? Is it a synonym of creature? Can creature apply to PCs? Follow this chain of logic and that sentence about damage covers everything that might cause damage.

qube

2019-03-09, 05:15 PM

Burgerbeat, I don't quite follow. You first asked.

And what if healing were not “specifically stated as it’s own thing”...
Then, would it be reasonable to say that healing is a damage roll?

Then you asked

On what logical basis can you assert something with zero evidence?

((Ignoring that logical conclusions based on antecendents, and reasonable judgement, are not neccecairly the same thing))
And now you're asking

So in a book that makes no mention of healing, it would (a) be logical to assert that healing exists, with no evidence,

Which is contradicted by the first statement, second sentence, in which YOU posit it's still a thing, despite not being mentioned.

Plain & simple, It's only common sense, that - EVEN wether or not healing is specified in a book or not, it's logical that " -1d12 damage" inceases one's hit points, a.k.a. heals.
A hypothetical book without specific healing rules, logically, your would still increase hit points instead of decreasing them, when you get negative damage.

I haven't got a clue where you're trying to go with your point.

qube

2019-03-09, 05:21 PM

What is the rules definition of a monster? Is it a synonym of creature? Can creature apply to PCs? Follow this chain of logic and that sentence about damage covers everything that might cause damage.Meh, that's a bit of a stretch to a prioiry justify the sentence. And, it doesn't adress a different problem:

Each weapon, spell, and harmful monster ability specifies the damage it deals

Can someone point me to the page where it's specificied what damage Charm Person deals?

... I mean, that is a spell, right?

Rukelnikov

2019-03-09, 05:37 PM

What is the rules definition of a monster? Is it a synonym of creature? Can creature apply to PCs? Follow this chain of logic and that sentence about damage covers everything that might cause damage.

The answer is clear cut in the first pages of the MM

"What is a Monster?: A monster is defined as any creature that can be interacted with and potentially fought and killed. Even something as harmless as a frog or as benevolent as a unicorn is a monster by this definition. The term also applies to humans, elves, dwarves, and other civilized folk who might be friends or rivals to the player characters. Most of the monsters that haunt the D&D world, however, are threats that are meant to be stopped: rampaging demons, conniving devils, soul-sucking undead, summoned elementals- the list goes on. This book contains ready-to-play, easy-to-run
monsters of all levels, and for nearly every climate and terrain imaginable. Whether your adventure takes place in a swamp, a dungeon, or the outer planes of existence, there are creatures in this book to populate that environment."

Monster are, by definition, any creature but the player characters.

Xeko

2019-03-09, 05:49 PM

The answer is clear cut in the first pages of the MM

"What is a Monster?: A monster is defined as any creature that can be interacted with and potentially fought and killed. Even something as harmless as a frog or as benevolent as a unicorn is a monster by this definition. The term also applies to humans, elves, dwarves, and other civilized folk who might be friends or rivals to the player characters. Most of the monsters that haunt the D&D world, however, are threats that are meant to be stopped: rampaging demons, conniving devils, soul-sucking undead, summoned elementals- the list goes on. This book contains ready-to-play, easy-to-run
monsters of all levels, and for nearly every climate and terrain imaginable. Whether your adventure takes place in a swamp, a dungeon, or the outer planes of existence, there are creatures in this book to populate that environment."

Monster are, by definition, any creature but the player characters.

Including the player characters. PvP is not typical, but is feasible within the rules. Ergo other player characters are "creatures that can be interacted with".

Rukelnikov

2019-03-09, 06:09 PM

Including the player characters. PvP is not typical, but is feasible within the rules. Ergo other player characters are "creatures that can be interacted with".

Ehh, no, it pretty clearly refers to the player characters as such.

Xeko

2019-03-09, 06:11 PM

Ehh, no, it pretty clearly refers to the player characters as such.
So player characters cant interact with each other? Or are not considered creatures? Being referred to as a player character doesnt stop you from also being a monster. You can be both.

Rukelnikov

2019-03-09, 06:19 PM

So player characters cant interact with each other?

They can.

Or are not considered creatures? Being referred to as a player character doesnt stop you from also being a monster. You can be both.

They are creatures, they are not monsters, which is what that part explains. For a simpler proof that they are considered different, here you go:

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/05/16/does-creature-as-applied-to-hold-monster-affect-everyone-except-undead/

""Creature" refers to characters and monsters alike"

Xeko

2019-03-09, 06:22 PM

They can. They are creatures, they are not mosnters, which what that part is explaining. For a simpler proof that they are considered different, here you go:

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/05/16/does-creature-as-applied-to-hold-monster-affect-everyone-except-undead/

""Creature" refers to characters and monsters alike"

It's a contradiction then. The definition of monster very clearly, without ambiguity (unlike the other topics of this thread) includes players.

Rukelnikov

2019-03-09, 06:23 PM

It's a contradiction then. The definition of monster very clearly, without ambiguity (unlike the other topics of this thread) includes players.

No it doesn't, it quite clearly differentiates player characters from every other creature in the game, but you have been on a path of denial for the last couple pages where you disregard everything that doesn't support your stance.

Xeko

2019-03-09, 06:26 PM

No it doesn't, it quite clearly differentiates player characters from every other creature in the game, but you have been on a path of denial for the last couple pages where you disregard everything that doesn't support your stance.

Is a character a creature? Can a character be interacted with? Those are the ONLY requirements for "monster" status, by your own definition.

Rukelnikov

2019-03-09, 06:31 PM

Is a character a creature? Can a character be interacted with? Those are the ONLY requirements for "monster" status, by your own definition.

You mean by the MM definition, and no, it mentions player characters differentiating them.

Want even more proof? The PHB has a section called "Creating a Character", the DMG has a section called "Creating a Monster", its not that there's not enough proof, its that you don't want to accept it.

Xeko

2019-03-09, 06:35 PM

You mean by the MM definition, and no, it mentions player characters differentiating them.

Want even more proof? The PHB has a section called "Creating a Character", the DMG has a section called "Creating a Monster", its not that there's not enough proof, its that you don't want to accept it.

The MM definition does NOT differentiate them. Are you referring to the line "that may or may not be friends or rivals to the player characters"? Because you realize most player characters are friends or rivals to one another, right? That is not differentiation. And again, if a character is a specific kind of monster, they would require specific rules to build, beyond the create a monster rules. You say there is evidence, but what you are sharing is not evidence. It doesn't mean what you think it means.

Rukelnikov

2019-03-09, 06:36 PM

The MM definition does NOT differentiate them. Are you referring to the line "that may or may not be friends or rivals to the player characters"? Because you realize most player characters are friends or rivals to one another, right? That is not differentiation. And again, if a character is a specific kind of monster, they would require specific rules to build, beyond the create a monster rules. You say there is evidence, but what you are sharing is not evidence. It doesn't mean what you think it means.

I accept your concession, have a good day.

Xeko

2019-03-09, 06:40 PM

Whatever helps you sleep at night

Kadesh

2019-03-09, 06:43 PM

I accept your concession, have a good day.

If you were a defence lawyer you'd get so many people prosecuted. It's amusing.

n00b

2019-03-09, 08:01 PM

Whatever next, Godwin's law?

I actually took some time away to think over this because the more I thought about it the more I'm just astounded that you would stoop to this level of insinuation. How do you know I don't have friends and/or family directly involved in that? If you feel the need to win an argument that badly then by all means go ahead. I concede. As soon as I can figure out how I'll put you on blocked and you won't ever have to worry about me responding to a post or challenging you on anything again. Some of the things I said might not have been the most polite, and for that I apologize, but I can rest easy knowing I would never, ever, resort to what you've done.

Boci

2019-03-09, 08:10 PM

I actually took some time away to think over this because the more I thought about it the more I'm just astounded that you would stoop to this level of insinuation. How do you know I don't have friends and/or family directly involved in that? If you feel the need to win an argument that badly then by all means go ahead. I concede. As soon as I can figure out how I'll put you on blocked and you won't ever have to worry about me responding to a post or challenging you on anything again. Some of the things I said might not have been the most polite, and for that I apologize, but I can rest easy knowing I would never, ever, resort to what you've done.

Its not really fair to blame Kadesh for mentioning Godwin's law. If you don't like it, that your right to decide, but its a thing that is said on the internet and hardly constiutes stooping low.

n00b

2019-03-09, 08:22 PM

Its not really fair to blame Kadesh for mentioning Godwin's law. If you don't like it, that your right to decide, but its a thing that is said on the internet and hardly constiutes stooping low.

The fact he insinuated that I would even go there is definitely low. No matter who may or may not say it.

Boci

2019-03-09, 08:25 PM

The fact he insinuated that I would even go there is definitely low. No matter who may or may not say it.

No it isn't. "What's next, Godwins law?" is a common comeback on the internet to when your argument is dissmissed. You don't have to like that, but you don't get to set the moral standards on how low it is.

n00b

2019-03-09, 08:38 PM

No it isn't. "What's next, Godwins law?" is a common comeback on the internet to when your argument is dissmissed. You don't have to like that, but you don't get to set the moral standards on how low it is.

I most certainly do. But thanks for trying to help.

Boci

2019-03-09, 08:45 PM

I most certainly do. But thanks for trying to help.

No you don't. You don't have to like people using the expression "It was a massacre", but you don't get to decide that people who do say it are bad. Similarly, "Everyone who disagrees with me is literally Hitler" is a point people make on the internet about others debate styles.

n00b

2019-03-09, 09:10 PM

No you don't. You don't have to like people using the expression "It was a massacre", but you don't get to decide that people who do say it are bad. Similarly, "Everyone who disagrees with me is literally Hitler" is a point people make on the internet about others debate styles.

Fortunately for me I have my own moral compass. And anything along this line definitely comes in below it.

Boci

2019-03-09, 09:15 PM

Fortunately for me I have my own moral compass. And anything along this line definitely comes in below it.

Having your own moral compass is fine. Judging other people for not using your own moral compass isn't.

Corran

2019-03-09, 09:29 PM

But, they haven't, though? The argument's they're using aren't applicable. A rule telling you how to total dice rolls isn't applicable to things that are considered damage rolls. Damage Rolls includes rolling any number of dice specified (of which 0 is still a number; "0 (zero) is both a number[1] and the numerical digit used to represent that number in numerals."), and then that generic rule is used to total those.

Haven't read everything in this thread, and wont, but if I understand correctly you say that ''damage roll'' is the generic term for ''damage'' and that the added term ''roll'' effectively makes no difference since we can say that 4 damage is the same as a 0dX+4 damage roll?

Does it make more sense that the above is the case, or simply that the roll part is added when rolling of the dice is involved to generate the outcome? If you say that the first makes more sense, or that they are both equally possible interpretations, I wont even try to change your mind. But if not, remember that rules are meant to be interpreted as plain English, so without technicalities of the form in your post I quoted.

Xeko

2019-03-09, 11:03 PM

Haven't read everything in this thread, and wont, but if I understand correctly you say that ''damage roll'' is the generic term for ''damage'' and that the added term ''roll'' effectively makes no difference since we can say that 4 damage is the same as a 0dX+4 damage roll?

Does it make more sense that the above is the case, or simply that the roll part is added when rolling of the dice is involved to generate the outcome? If you say that the first makes more sense, or that they are both equally possible interpretations, I wont even try to change your mind. But if not, remember that rules are meant to be interpreted as plain English, so without technicalities of the form in your post I quoted.

You missed large portions of the thread. But essentially, the terms "damage" and "damage roll" are used interchangeably by Wizards. The most clear cut example being where the section on weapon attacks say you add your strength or dexterity score mod to the damage, but then the description of what the strength and dexterity scores do, they say you add the mods to damage rolls.

Corran

2019-03-09, 11:50 PM

You missed large portions of the thread. But essentially, the terms "damage" and "damage roll" are used interchangeably by Wizards. The most clear cut example being where the section on weapon attacks say you add your strength or dexterity score mod to the damage, but then the description of what the strength and dexterity scores do, they say you add the mods to damage rolls.
Isn't that a stretch? One example does not mean that the terms are interchangeable, especially when common logic says they are not. I can get all technical about it and say that since they are referring to weapon attacks and weapons involve dice rolling, using the term damage instead of damage roll is the same thing since the rolling of the dice is implied (I don't think we have any weapons that do a fixed amount of damage, do we?). But is this argument really necessary on my part? Trying to find imperfections in the phb in the hope to justify an absurd position seems silly. It's not rocket science...

BurgerBeast

2019-03-10, 12:04 AM

Burgerbeat, I don't quite follow. You first asked.

...

I haven't got a clue where you're trying to go with your point.

I’m not trying to go anywhere. I’m just trying to understand his argument.

I can’t get past the claim that “roll a die or dice” can interpreted in such a way that if you roll zero dice, you satisfy it.

I’m going to eat a hamburger or hamburgers, today. Then, at the end of the day I’ve eaten zero hamburgers.

Someone comes along and says: “You lied. You didn’t eat any hamburgers.”

And I am allowed to say: “Yes, I did. I ate zero hamburgers. And zero is a number of hamburgers.”

...yeah... no.

Xeko

2019-03-10, 12:11 AM

Isn't that a stretch? One example does not mean that the terms are interchangeable, especially when common logic says they are not. I can get all technical about it and say that since they are referring to weapon attacks and weapons involve dice rolling, using the term damage instead of damage roll is the same thing since the rolling of the dice is implied (I don't think we have any weapons that do a fixed amount of damage, do we?). But is this argument really necessary on my part? Trying to find imperfections in the phb in the hope to justify an absurd position seems silly. It's not rocket science...

Yes, we do actually have weapons that do fixed damage. The Blowgun and Unarmed Strikes (which are confirmed to be treated as weapon attacks despite not being weapons on the weapon table) both deal 1 damage. And both still get the ability score modifier added to them. Unarmed strikes even get Dex instead of Str added for Monks, and the ability that says as much calls damage of the unarmed strike a "damage roll". There is more than just that one example.

BurgerBeast

2019-03-10, 12:23 AM

Yes, we do actually have weapons that do fixed damage. The Blowgun and Unarmed Strikes (which are confirmed to be treated as weapon attacks despite not being weapons on the weapon table) both deal 1 damage. And both still get the ability score modifier added to them.

Unarmed attacks specifically do 1+Str damage. They are an exception to the general rule. If they were not an exception, then it would just say 1 damage.

The blowgun does 1 damage only. It is not an exception.

Unarmed strikes even get Dex instead of Str added for Monks, and the ability that says as much calls damage of the unarmed strike a "damage roll". There is more than just that one example.

That’s because monks make damag rolls. So it’s not simply damage, it’s a damage roll. The default is no roll. The default is 1 + Str. For a monk it’s a damage roll + Str or Dex.

Corran

2019-03-10, 12:30 AM

Unarmed strikes even get Dex instead of Str added for Monks, and the ability that says as much calls damage of the unarmed strike a "damage roll". There is more than just that one example.
So the language used in these parts could do with some refining (assuming what Burgerbeast says above is not correct) if the aim is to be technically correct and leave no room whatsoever for whatever misconception. That does not make the terms damage and damage roll interchangeable, for the simple fact that they are not. Why? Because the second has the word roll added, which actually means something. What does it mean? That you have to roll dice.

Xeko

2019-03-10, 01:11 AM

So the language used in these parts could do with some refining (assuming what Burgerbeast says above is not correct) if the aim is to be technically correct and leave no room whatsoever for whatever misconception. That does not make the terms damage and damage roll interchangeable, for the simple fact that they are not. Why? Because the second has the word roll added, which actually means something. What does it mean? That you have to roll dice.

In common English the word roll means you make a roll. In the game, that may not necessarily be true. As someone pointed out before, in the English language you can attack using Magic Missile. But in game terminology, Magic Missile is not an attack.

thelastorphan

2019-03-10, 01:16 AM

If NPCs count as monsters than any ability possessed by the various classes can reasonably be understood as a harmful ability of a monster in some cases. By strict RAW any ability has the potential to be a monster ability in this way. I don't see how this breaks any game assumption or changes the structure of the game. It seems perfectly sensible given that there are NPC stat blocks using PHB classes in the MM. They even tell you to use them with any race. Plenty of racial abilities can be harmful Monster abilities too. It's a distinction with no meaning because an NPC built with PHB classes is identical to a PC built the same way. They have access to all the same abilities. The NPC counts a Monster, the PC is a Character, even though they can be built and run with identical mechanics? Seems asinine.

Corran

2019-03-10, 02:16 AM

In common English the word roll means you make a roll. In the game, that may not necessarily be true.
So what does it mean? Apples? Is there some poetic license I am not taking into account?
The first post I answered to (the one from Kadesh) was saying that a damage roll includes the possibility that you roll zero dice (so it's basically a fixed amount of damage and there is no roll). Basically this interpretation suggests that the word roll is not added to make a distinction between damage that involves rolling dice and damage that does not involve rolling dice, so that means that the word roll was added by accident or confusion. Whether that's true or not, we now have two separate terms and each of them refers to two different things. I don't think that it's hard for anyone to grasp the difference between flat and rolled damage and from which of 'damage' and 'damage roll' each of them derives.

So based on the above, my questions to you are the following:
1) Do you think that the word roll is used to mean anything else than rolling one or more dice?
2) Do you think that it includes the case of rolling zero dice (so not actually rolling)?

qube

2019-03-10, 02:30 AM

The fact he insinuated that I would even go there is definitely low. No matter who may or may not say it.Sorry mate, but he mentioned it as response to you pulling an ad hominem.

In fact, by your own claim, " How do you know I don't have friends and/or family directly involved in that?" ... How do You know he's not very conciencous about his spelling/gammer, and by claiming english is not his native language, you greatly insulted him.

Sorry mate, but you can't insult someone, and then complain they say something that someone else might take offense to.

... well ... OK, you can. But you shouldn't.

Isn't that a stretch? One example does not mean that the terms are interchangeable, especially when common logic says they are not.Second example then, it's also noted that magic items, abilities and such give boosts to damage, but in the description, consistantly (rage, mnouvres, bardic inspiration, magic weapons) these bonusses are given to damage rolls.

In the end, the problem is that RAW is inherently "flawless" - it is the rules as written.

If you argue that damage & damage rolls are two different things - that you roll your damage, then by RAW, you get your STR mod to your damage, and then it's added, again, to the damage roll.

But note- again, this is RAW - nothing stopping you (and should stop you) from reading the rules, saying "well, I think the rules work like this" and use that.

Because, consider, despite me advocating that RAW says damage = damage boost, I will still play with static damage being different then rolled damages; with the exception of 1-damage-attacks (unarmed strike, a cat that bites), where I consider 1 = 1d1, and thus doules on crit.

But that's an argument of oppinion. You can't force someone to follow your oppinion; you can only note "this is what I do, and why I do it" and hope those are convincing reasons.

As such -- that's where this entire thread fails horribly. In that nobody gives a convincing reason why their use of the rules is better.
Nobody is like "well, I don't give boosts to static damage, because if you look at this and this and this spell, that would be clearly overpowered"

I’m not trying to go anywhere. I’m just trying to understand his argument.

I can’t get past the claim that “roll a die or dice” can interpreted in such a way that if you roll zero dice, you satisfy it.

I’m going to eat a hamburger or hamburgers, today. Then, at the end of the day I’ve eaten zero hamburgers.

Someone comes along and says: “You lied. You didn’t eat any hamburgers.”

And I am allowed to say: “Yes, I did. I ate zero hamburgers. And zero is a number of hamburgers.”

...yeah... no.zero's always been funny. Ironically

The ancient Greeks had no symbol for zero, and did not use a digit placeholder for it. They seemed unsure about the status of zero as a number. They asked themselves, "How can nothing be something?", leading to philosophical and, by the medieval period, religious arguments about the nature and existence of zero and the vacuum. The paradoxes of Zeno of Elea depend in large part on the uncertain interpretation of zero.
~~ Wikipedia

Inherently, the exact wording is very important, as that defines the level of inherent assumptions behind it. If you say "I’m going to eat a hamburger or hamburgers", there's a non-zero assumption in there.

Oppositely, as simple example, if my wife askes me to go to the store, It's not going to be an OK that I come home emptyhanded, just because they didn't have 1 of the items on my list. In that case, correct interpretation would have been to I am to ignore the zero compoment, and handle everything accordingly.

As such, it's also possible to see a handling a damage roll as handling a shopping list: best effort / ignore zeros.

qube

2019-03-10, 02:32 AM

So what does it mean? Apples?as pointed out before.
it's not litterly defined
it's used interchangeably with damage
... which means ... well ... "damage roll" = "damage".

It's not a conclusion I like, but it's the only objective one I can draw.

Edit: you obviously can't just go "Lets ignore all the cases where we can see what it is ... oh look, we don't see what it is, seems like we're going to have to use my interpretation of it"

Corran

2019-03-10, 02:57 AM

If you argue that damage & damage rolls are two different things - that you roll your damage, then by RAW, you get your STR mod to your damage, and then it's added, again, to the damage roll.
I can rephrase if you want. Flat damage and rolled damage are concepts that we can easily distinguish. They aren't hard to grasp. Damage refers to the result, regardless of how we came up with it. Damage roll essentially sets a condition, that the damage result you get involved one or more dice being rolled and which contributed to getting the result we got. Is all this really necessary though?

But note- again, this is RAW - nothing stopping you (and should stop you) from reading the rules, saying "well, I think the rules work like this" and use that.
I agree (also I agree that RAW isn't flawless and that fixating on it as if it was written by someone with a divine mandate is productive). I am criticizing opposing views to my own. Partly because I think they are illogical and that's intriguing me and partly because I am curious to see where this disagreement will take me.

But that's an argument of opinion. You can't force someone to follow your opinion; you can only note "this is what I do, and why I do it" and hope those are convincing reasons.
That's a matter of manners, etiquette and persuasiveness. I don't mean to come across as rude to anyone though.

As such -- that's where this entire thread fails horribly. In that nobody gives a convincing reason why their use of the rules is better.
Nobody is like "well, I don't give boosts to static damage, because if you look at this and this and this spell, that would be clearly overpowered"

This is a different conversation. To have this conversation we must agree that both interpretations are valid. Currently we are arguing about the validity of one of them.

Edit:

as pointed out before.
it's not litterly defined
it's used interchangeably with damage
... which means ... well ... "damage roll" = "damage".

It's not a conclusion I like, but it's the only objective one I can draw.

Edit: you obviously can't just go "Lets ignore all the cases where we can see what it is ... oh look, we don't see what it is, seems like we're going to have to use my interpretation of it"
So basically you are guessing the intent. Which as you suggest, there is none. Meaning it was purely accidental that they used both 'damage' and 'damage rolls'. It's not entirely unlikely. But who knows? I certainly don't know. Do you?

Essentially, I think it lacks any logic (within the context of the game) to call any fixed amount of damage a damage roll. If there are passages in the books where the term damage roll is misused, it is exactly that, a misuse. Maybe the term damage roll was put in there by accident. Maybe the game is better off without it. Maybe game balance profits from your interpretation. But I wont change the meaning and implications of the word roll based on any of these. I don't mind ignoring it, but by ignoring it we are ignoring RAW (which is not necessarily a bad thing).

qube

2019-03-10, 03:55 AM

I can rephrase if you want. Flat damage and rolled damage are concepts that we can easily distinguish. They aren't hard to grasp. but I don't want you to rephrase that - at least not by inventing new terms.
The problem isn't something would be "hard to grasp" - but it's that it's not what the rules say.

I am criticizing opposing views to my own. Partly because I think they are illogical and that's intriguing mewhy would it be illogical? I'm a very logical person, yet I do not see any other interpretation of the rules possible.

To have this conversation we must agree that both interpretations are valid.

Meaning that they used both 'damage' and 'damage rolls' by accident. It's not entirely unlikely. But who knows? I certainly don't know. Do you?"by accident" I do not know, but I do know they use it for the same thing.

IF they are differnt things,
SINCE the rules say you add your STR mod to damage AND you add your STR mod to the damage roll
THIS MEANS your a 1d10 weapon, with +3 strength would end up doing between 7 and 16 damage (excluding criticals & other bonusses)
BUT we know that it's not the case

Q.E.D. by proof of contradiciton

Corran

2019-03-10, 04:18 AM

.
"by accident" I do not know, but I do know they use it for the same thing.

That does not necessarily equate the two terms though. Using them for the same thing here and there can certainly mean that they just have overlap while they are not the same. And they certainly do overlap. Damage is the result of a damage roll, so in whatever context where the means of how we got to the damage result is irrelevant, we can certainly use damage instead of damage roll, because it doesn't make a difference obviously. However, nothing guarantees that the opposite direction is satisfied, because we can do damage without having to roll dice.

Edit: Is there an example where the term damage roll is used to describe damage that does not involve rolling dice? Because that can actually support your opinion. I will dismiss it as bad writing and I will insist that the meaning of the word roll is more important than what ''obviously'' is bad editing, but I will also concede how this can be seen as a heavily opinionated claim (which IMO is the most logical interpretation).

qube

2019-03-10, 05:42 AM

Is there an example where the term damage roll is used to describe damage that does not involve rolling dicepage 14 discounts blowguns & unarmed strikes

rage, bardic inspiration, dueling fighting style, manouvres, foe slayer, charger ... work on bonus on damage rolls
but other damage boosting feats, like GWM & sniper apply to damage.

page 176 & 177 note STAT to damage roll, page 196 notes STAT to damage

magic weapons (spells, items, oil of sharpness) add their bonusses to damage rolls (so again, no damage bonus for magic blowgun or magic darts?)

...

so, by design ...
- you can't get 1d6 bardic inspiration damage on your blow dart, or +1 magic damage; but you do get +10 sniper damage?
- a ranger's animal companion get +Prof to damage if it deals 1d2, but not when it's deals 1 damage?
- ...

Somehow, seems unlikely, doesn't it?

RSP

2019-03-10, 09:59 AM

I don't want to be anoying, but it isn't. At least not from your quote. The first instance of "roll" is a verb in the english langauge, while the second is a noun game term. Consider
(In the english language), you can attack someone with magic missle ( #IAttackTheDarkness )
Magic missle isn't an attack

The English language, is, indeed, flexible. However, that doesn’t mean “make a dice roll” and “roll the dice” are not synonymous. Likewise, “damage roll” and “roll damage” likewise mean the same.

sophontteks

2019-03-10, 10:07 AM

page 14 discounts blowguns & unarmed strikes

rage, bardic inspiration, dueling fighting style, manouvres, foe slayer, charger ... work on bonus on damage rolls
but other damage boosting feats, like GWM & sniper apply to damage.

page 176 & 177 note STAT to damage roll, page 196 notes STAT to damage

magic weapons (spells, items, oil of sharpness) add their bonusses to damage rolls (so again, no damage bonus for magic blowgun or magic darts?)

...

so, by design ...
- you can't get 1d6 bardic inspiration damage on your blow dart, or +1 magic damage; but you do get +10 sniper damage?
- a ranger's animal companion get +Prof to damage if it deals 1d2, but not when it's deals 1 damage?
- ...

Somehow, seems unlikely, doesn't it?
Darts are a 1d4, so they are a damage roll.

Its much more likely that they forgot to write out that these 2 exceptions also work with regular attacks. Since they are 99% similar no one has ever noticed this minor oversight. That there are 2 whole attacks that aren't rolls. This is far better then trying to apply the rules for damage roll on everything in the game that deals damage, which would include all sorts of ridiculous hi-jinks.

RSP

2019-03-10, 10:12 AM

No, you're right. The rules under the heading "Damage Rolls" which states "Each ... spell ... specifies the damage it deals. You roll the damage die or dice, add any modifiers, and apply the damage to your target" doesn't apply to Armor of Agathys, because Armor of Agathys doesn't specify the damage it deals. Rolleyes.gif

Cite the rules which states that damage which does not roll a dice is not a damage roll. Feel free to do that. The fact you haven't, and cannot, quite categorically suggests you are unable to do. The fact that you are quite happy to sift through all of the material to try and back up your position, and have yet to provide a written rule that actually states such a thing only says to me that this thing you are suggesting, is not RAW. Meanwhile, I have RAW which states that spells which deal damage are included under the heading of "Damage Rolls".

The meaning of “damage” and “roll” is explained prior to the section you refer to. We know what damage is:

“A creature’s current hit points (usually just called hit points) can be any number from the creature’s hit point maximum down to 0. This number changes frequently as a creature takes damage or receives healing.
Whenever a creature takes damage, that damage is subtracted from its hit points. The loss of hit points has no effect on a creature’s capabilities until the creature drops to 0 hit points.”

And we know what a roll is:

“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 the section you refer to, “Damage Rolls,” is telling us how the two interact.

We already know that damage rolls and damage that doesn’t include a roll are different:

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

So this section is specifically telling us what to do when rolling for damage. Yes, it states that abilities tell you what damage it deals. This is a true statement: AoA, for instance, deals 5 cold damage per spell slot used.

As it is one of the cases where a spell tells us the damage it deals, sans a roll, the rules specific to rolling for damage, do not affect it.

That opening line, tells how’s how we, the reader, determine which abilities use rolls and which do not; that is, it’s written in the ability.

We know from the rules on rolling that if an ability states a XdY for damage, it involves rolling, and therefore the rules for rolling damage apply.

The “Damage Rolls” section further clarifies this: “You roll the damage die or dice, add any modifiers, and apply the damage to your target.”

This line tells us the intent of the section is only for abilities with rolls, otherwise, this line makes no sense.

Further, “roll the damage” is yet another example of “damage roll” not being a game term. Otherwise, it wouldn’t use common English to explain this without using the game term; it would have used the game term, such as “you make the damage roll, add any modifiers...” It doesn’t say this because it’s the common English of combining what damage is, and what a roll is.

Kadesh

2019-03-10, 11:12 AM

As an example of things that specify otherwise; Tempest Cleric ability.

Please provide the specification that it's not a damage roll.

Kadesh

2019-03-10, 11:14 AM

This is far better then trying to apply the rules for damage roll on everything in the game that deals damage, which would include all sorts of ridiculous hi-jinks.And what HiJinks are those?

Boci

2019-03-10, 11:15 AM

As an example of things that specify otherwise; Tempest Cleric ability.

Please provide the specification that it's not a damage roll.

It says "you can use your Channel Divinity to deal maximum damage, instead of rolling." implying this is not meant to count as a roll since instead means to replace, but I imagine you are aware of that and have a different interpretation on what that sentence means.

sophontteks

2019-03-10, 11:24 AM

As an example of things that specify otherwise; Tempest Cleric ability.

Please provide the specification that it's not a damage roll.
This whole debate originated from another thread where someone was insisting that Armor of Agyths is a damage roll and should have modifiers added to it.

Crgaston

2019-03-10, 11:37 AM

page 14 discounts blowguns & unarmed strikes

rage, bardic inspiration, dueling fighting style, manouvres, foe slayer, charger ... work on bonus on damage rolls
but other damage boosting feats, like GWM & sniper apply to damage.

page 176 & 177 note STAT to damage roll, page 196 notes STAT to damage

magic weapons (spells, items, oil of sharpness) add their bonusses to damage rolls (so again, no damage bonus for magic blowgun or magic darts?)

...

so, by design ...
- you can't get 1d6 bardic inspiration damage on your blow dart, or +1 magic damage; but you do get +10 sniper damage?
- a ranger's animal companion get +Prof to damage if it deals 1d2, but not when it's deals 1 damage?
- ...

Somehow, seems unlikely, doesn't it?

Darts are a 1d4, so they are a damage roll.

Its much more likely that they forgot to write out that these 2 exceptions also work with regular attacks. Since they are 99% similar no one has ever noticed this minor oversight. That there are 2 whole attacks that aren't rolls. This is far better then trying to apply the rules for damage roll on everything in the game that deals damage, which would include all sorts of ridiculous hi-jinks.

I believe qube is referring to magic blowgun ammunition, which are often IRL called darts, not the actual weapon "dart." The proper game term is "needles," probably to mitigate this exact issue.

I agree that the larger issue is likely an editorial oversight and that the alternative is analogous to the tail wagging the dog.

sophontteks

2019-03-10, 11:44 AM

The problem is that the poster mentioned blowguns and darts, making it out like they are seperate things to make the arguement appear stronger then it is.

Crgaston

2019-03-10, 11:48 AM

The problem is that the poster mentioned blowguns and darts, making it out like they are seperate things to make the arguement appear stronger then it is.

I mean, you can have a magic bow or magic arrows, both of which could have a +1, so I don't see how separating magic blowgun from magic needles is falsely inflating anything?

Kadesh

2019-03-10, 11:49 AM

This whole debate originated from another thread where someone was insisting that Armor of Agyths is a damage roll and should have modifiers added to it.

How is that a Hijink though? Applying bonus damage to a damage roll seems perfectly normal behaviour.

It says "you can use your Channel Divinity to deal maximum damage, instead of rolling." implying this is not meant to count as a roll since instead means to replace, but I imagine you are aware of that and have a different interpretation on what that sentence means.
So aware, that you agree I believe that it's not a roll, because it specifies it's not a roll. In exception to the normal rules for damaging spells, under damage roll rules? Which Armor of Agathys is (a damaging spell). Which also, notably, doesn't include the specification that it's not a damage roll. For it to be "specified otherwise", it would have to specify otherwise.

Crgaston

2019-03-10, 11:55 AM

It's amusing that, in this argument, a needle is analogous to the nose of the camel.

Crgaston

2019-03-10, 11:59 AM

How is that a Hijink though? Applying bonus damage to a damage roll seems perfectly normal behaviour.

So aware, that you agree I believe that it's not a roll, because it specifies it's not a roll. In exception to the normal rules for damaging spells, under damage roll rules? Which Armor of Agathys is (a damaging spell). Which also, notably, doesn't include the specification that it's not a damage roll. For it to be "specified otherwise", it would have to specify otherwise.

AoA specifies a flat damage amount. Not XdX; a flat amount. That is "otherwise" from a roll.

Kadesh

2019-03-10, 12:12 PM

AoA specifies a flat damage amount. Not XdX; a flat amount. That is "otherwise" from a roll.

That's an interesting form of "specifying", when there's a perfect example of what a specification otherwise looks like under Tempest Cleric.

Crgaston

2019-03-10, 12:25 PM

That's an interesting form of "specifying", when there's a perfect example of what a specification otherwise looks like under Tempest Cleric.

They are different but equally valid means of specification. Some spells specify that you roll damage. AoA specifies a flat amount. Tempest Cleric ability specifies that you can choose to do a flat amount (which varies according to spell and slot level) instead of rolling for spells which otherwise specify rolling.

Hypothetical: How would the Tempest Cleric ability interact with AoA if it did Lightning damage instead of Cold?

RSP

2019-03-10, 01:23 PM

As an example of things that specify otherwise; Tempest Cleric ability.

Please provide the specification that it's not a damage roll.

This is not a counter example to what I wrote. If you intended this as a counter to all I wrote, citing RAW, and showing how your point fails, please actually explain what your meaning is.

Kadesh

2019-03-10, 02:33 PM

They are different but equally valid means of specification. Some spells specify that you roll damage. AoA specifies a flat amount. Tempest Cleric ability specifies that you can choose to do a flat amount (which varies according to spell and slot level) instead of rolling for spells which otherwise specify rolling.
Please identify the source of this "flat amount" damage you're talking about. It's a made up term.

I don't equate "not specifying" to be "specifying", but hey, that's just me. There's no SPECIFIC wording, stating it's an exception. Only an inference, which individuals are trying to pass off as RAW.

Hypothetical: How would the Tempest Cleric ability interact with AoA if it did Lightning damage instead of Cold?
"When you roll lightning or thunder damage, you can use your Channel Divinity to deal maximum damage, instead of rolling."
5, plus 5 per additional level of spell slot after the first used to cast the spell. You know, maximum damage.

BurgerBeast

2019-03-10, 03:17 PM

The entire proposition that damage and damage roll are used interchangeably is nonsense. But even if you disagree, the very act of determining whether they are used interchangeably is a matter of interpretation, not a matter of what is written.

So we can play the same ridiculous game by asking “where in the rules does it specifically say that damage and damage roll are interchangeable?”

When the MM lists damage for an attack as 7 (1d8+2), are you claiming that 7 and 1d8+2 are the same thing?

Since “damage” and “damage roll” are interchangeable, in your view, 7 is damage and a damage roll, and 1d8+2 is damage and a damage roll?

Xeko

2019-03-10, 03:28 PM

So based on the above, my questions to you are the following:
1) Do you think that the word roll is used to mean anything else than rolling one or more dice?
2) Do you think that it includes the case of rolling zero dice (so not actually rolling)?

Yes, within the context of the passage that is headed "damage rolls" the word "roll" does include the potentiality of rolling zero dice. The Passage begins "Damage Rolls: Every weapon attack, spell, and harmful monster ability specifies the damage it does." So, any effect that specifies that it does damage is a damage roll.

I'll again refer to my recent insurance claims. I receive instruction from the insurance company on how to receive my claim payout. The letter says I must provide the unsigned title to the vehicle, forfeit my key or keys, and sign a power of attorney. I then mail all of these things to them, and they process it and mail me my payout. But, I do not have keys to the vehicle. They were left in the vehicle when it was towed away. So, if we use your interpretation of the damage roll passage of the rules, and apply it to this scenario, I cannot get my insurance payout on this vehicle. The payout paperwork says I must surrender my key or keys. I do not have any keys. Therefore, no payout. If we interpret "key or keys" as including the possibility of zero keys, however, using my interpretation of the damage rolls passage, then I still get a payout, even without keys, and a damage roll is still a damage roll, even without dice.

BurgerBeast

2019-03-10, 03:29 PM

Xeko

2019-03-10, 03:30 PM

Since “damage” and “damage roll” are interchangeable, in your view, 7 is damage and a damage roll, and 1d8+2 is damage and a damage roll?

Correct. Both the 7 figure, and the 1d8+2 figure could be considered both "damage", and "damage rolls". They are two different options to achieve the same thing, as chosen by the players and DM prior to starting the game, for the sake of flavor.

BurgerBeast

2019-03-10, 03:31 PM

Yes, within the context of the passage that is headed "damage rolls" the word "roll" does include the potentiality of rolling zero dice. The Passage begins "Damage Rolls: Every weapon attack, spell, and harmful monster ability specifies the damage it does." So, any effect that specifies that it does damage is a damage roll.

I'll again refer to my recent insurance claims. I receive instruction from the insurance company on how to receive my claim payout. The letter says I must provide the unsigned title to the vehicle, forfeit my key or keys, and sign a power of attorney. I then mail all of these things to them, and they process it and mail me my payout. But, I do not have keys to the vehicle. They were left in the vehicle when it was towed away. So, if we use your interpretation of the damage roll passage of the rules, and apply it to this scenario, I cannot get my insurance payout on this vehicle. The payout paperwork says I must surrender my key or keys. I do not have any keys. Therefore, no payout. If we interpret "key or keys" as including the possibility of zero keys, however, using my interpretation of the damage rolls passage, then I still get a payout, even without keys, and a damage roll is still a damage roll, even without dice.

You don’t have any money.

“Yes I do! I have zero cents! Zero is an amount of money!”

You done have any friends.

“Yes I do! I have zero friends. Zero is a number of friends. Therefore I have a number of friends.”

...

What are you playing at?

Xeko

2019-03-10, 03:32 PM

I did notice that I made a mistake earlier, when I said that the blowgun does not do 1 + modifier.

It does do 1 + modifier, because of page 196, which states that when you attack with a weapon, you add your ability modifier to the damage. (I.e. not “damage roll”)

Since it says with a weapon (i.e. not on a “weapon attack”), this particular rule does not cover unarmed attacks, so it makes sense that they specifically state the damage for unarmed strikes, and include the modifier.

But on page 177 when it describes Dexterity and what Dexterity is used for, it specifically says that you may add your Dexterity modifier to the damage rolls of ranged and finesse weapons. They use the term Damage on page 196 and Damage Rolls on page 177, to refer to the same thing. This is part of the evidence that the terms are interchangeable.

BurgerBeast

2019-03-10, 03:33 PM

Correct. Both the 7 figure, and the 1d8+2 figure could be considered both "damage", and "damage rolls". They are two different options to achieve the same thing, as chosen by the players and DM prior to starting the game, for the sake of flavor.

You have the right to be wrong. Have fun with that.

BurgerBeast

2019-03-10, 03:36 PM

Xeko

2019-03-10, 03:36 PM

You have the right to be wrong. Have fun with that.

As do you, sir.

Xeko

2019-03-10, 03:38 PM

You can use the word “cat” or “mammal” or “animal” to refer to the same cat. That doesn’t make them interchangeable.

Damage roll and damage can refer to the same thing. This doesn’t mean that they must or that they always do.

This isn’t rocket science.

Yes, but that is just one example. It comes up often enough within the material that it is extremely unlikely that the relationship between the two terms is the same as the relationship between "cat" and "animal".

stoutstien

2019-03-10, 03:44 PM

Correct. Both the 7 figure, and the 1d8+2 figure could be considered both "damage", and "damage rolls". They are two different options to achieve the same thing, as chosen by the players and DM prior to starting the game, for the sake of flavor.
Technically they should use
≈7 (1d8+2) or μ 7 depending on language

RSP

2019-03-10, 04:53 PM

Yes, but that is just one example. It comes up often enough within the material that it is extremely unlikely that the relationship between the two terms is the same as the relationship between "cat" and "animal".

Well it kind of is. Rolling is one way of determining damage, so one could say it is one subcategory of damage, with the other subcategory being non-rolled damage. This is similar to cat being a subcategory of animal.

qube

2019-03-10, 05:39 PM

Well it kind of is. Rolling is one way of determining damage, so one could say it is one subcategory of damage, with the other subcategory being non-rolled damage. This is similar to cat being a subcategory of animal.yeah, but that doesn't adress the point that STAT to damage (roll) isn't the only example

According to you, blowgun damage

sniper feat: yes
bardic inspiration: no
manouvre: no
magic weapon boost : no
the spell "magic weapon" boost : no
magic ammunition boost: no

Xeko

2019-03-10, 05:39 PM

Well it kind of is. Rolling is one way of determining damage, so one could say it is one subcategory of damage, with the other subcategory being non-rolled damage. This is similar to cat being a subcategory of animal.

By your interpretation. Except no rules exist for "non-rolled" damage. There is a heading for Damage Rolls in the combat section. There is not for any other source of damage. My interpretation is that all damage is a damage roll, that the terms are one in the same.

Crgaston

2019-03-10, 06:06 PM

Please identify the source of this "flat amount" damage you're talking about. It's a made up term.

I don't equate "not specifying" to be "specifying", but hey, that's just me. There's no SPECIFIC wording, stating it's an exception. Only an inference, which individuals are trying to pass off as RAW.

"When you roll lightning or thunder damage, you can use your Channel Divinity to deal maximum damage, instead of rolling."
5, plus 5 per additional level of spell slot after the first used to cast the spell. You know, maximum damage.

"Flat amount" is a plain English description of the "5, plus 5 per additional level" damage dealt by AoA.

Where do I equate "not specifying" to "specifying?" Is there a rule stating that longswords are made of steel? Specifically? Can they be made of cheese instead? Why or why not?

With regard to your final point, I concur.

Based on evidence presented in posts between the one from you I quoted above and this one, I strongly suspect that different portions of the books were written either at different times or by different teams (without the benefit of hundreds of "editors" with years to nitpick the text), and as such this is a distinction without a difference, despite the muddying of the waters by the Crawford tweet which suggests one can't crit with a basic unarmed strike, and as such am inclined to support the idea that one can add Hexblade's Curse damage to AoA damage and other damage which may or may not involve a roll, but that is in spite of the RAW, not because of it.

Likewise with regard to magic blowguns.

Corran

2019-03-10, 06:16 PM

But on page 177 when it describes Dexterity and what Dexterity is used for, it specifically says that you may add your Dexterity modifier to the damage rolls of ranged and finesse weapons. They use the term Damage on page 196 and Damage Rolls on page 177, to refer to the same thing. This is part of the evidence that the terms are interchangeable.
This does not necessarily mean that the terms are interchangeable. It might mean that the terms can be interchangeable under certain conditions (guess when). Even if I agreed that the terms were interchangeable (and I don't), what's the plan here? To try and lock ourselves between two absurdities and then try to pick the least bad?

page 14 discounts blowguns & unarmed strikes

rage, bardic inspiration, dueling fighting style, manouvres, foe slayer, charger ... work on bonus on damage rolls
but other damage boosting feats, like GWM & sniper apply to damage.

page 176 & 177 note STAT to damage roll, page 196 notes STAT to damage

magic weapons (spells, items, oil of sharpness) add their bonusses to damage rolls (so again, no damage bonus for magic blowgun or magic darts?)

...

so, by design ...
- you can't get 1d6 bardic inspiration damage on your blow dart, or +1 magic damage; but you do get +10 sniper damage?
- a ranger's animal companion get +Prof to damage if it deals 1d2, but not when it's deals 1 damage?
- ...

Somehow, seems unlikely, doesn't it?
I don't think it is more likely that they accidentally used an extra word in 'roll' than forgetting about blowgun. I don't see any glaring problems with not allowing inspiration, maneuvers, etc with a blowgun or with an unarmed strike. Not that if it was allowed it would be a problem, but either way I don't think it is a big deal. The part about sharpshooter and blowgun is indeed a bit silly if that's how it works. Not the first silly RAW interaction though. Perhaps sharpshooter would be better off by only allowing to apply it on damage rolls (to exclude blowgun). I don't agree that you add your ability mod twice (once on the damage roll and once again on the result), but I think I answered that on my previous post.

sophontteks

2019-03-10, 07:11 PM

RSP

2019-03-10, 07:16 PM

By your interpretation. Except no rules exist for "non-rolled" damage. There is a heading for Damage Rolls in the combat section. There is not for any other source of damage. My interpretation is that all damage is a damage roll, that the terms are one in the same.

An interpretation I’ve debunked; go back and read my prior posts. If looking for how damage works:

“A creature’s current hit points (usually just called hit points) can be any number from the creature’s hit point maximum down to 0. This number changes frequently as a creature takes damage or receives healing.

Whenever a creature takes damage, that damage is subtracted from its hit points. The loss of hit points has no effect on a creature’s capabilities until the creature drops to 0 hit points.”

NaughtyTiger

2019-03-10, 07:28 PM

i was impressed that we spent 6 pages on this exact same conversation last week.

but, wow! 8 pages!

look at everything we have accomplished. bravo!

Xeko

2019-03-10, 07:55 PM

An interpretation I’ve debunked; go back and read my prior posts. If looking for how damage works:

“A creature’s current hit points (usually just called hit points) can be any number from the creature’s hit point maximum down to 0. This number changes frequently as a creature takes damage or receives healing.

Whenever a creature takes damage, that damage is subtracted from its hit points. The loss of hit points has no effect on a creature’s capabilities until the creature drops to 0 hit points.”

I disagree that a off hand clause under the explanation of how hit points works constitutes as a definition of what damage is. Nothing about that says a single word about flat damage, beyond damage existing.

BurgerBeast

2019-03-10, 08:03 PM

Yes, but that is just one example. It comes up often enough within the material that it is extremely unlikely that the relationship between the two terms is the same as the relationship between "cat" and "animal".

By this logic, if I refer to my cat as an animal enough times, animal and cat will come to mean the same thing.

Nice one.

It doesn’t matter how many times they appear to use two words interchangeably. You can never conclude that they are the same, unless you have some other reason to think so.

This is pretty fundamental stuff.

7 is 7.

1d8+2 is {3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10}

If you think those are the same, you are wrong. Period.

sophontteks

2019-03-10, 08:06 PM

Rukelnikov

2019-03-10, 08:46 PM

i was impressed that we spent 6 pages on this exact same conversation last week.

but, wow! 8 pages!

look at everything we have accomplished. bravo!

We've been doing good, but let's not rest on our laurels, next week we aim for 10!

thrdeye

2019-03-10, 09:38 PM

By your interpretation. Except no rules exist for "non-rolled" damage. There is a heading for Damage Rolls in the combat section. There is not for any other source of damage. My interpretation is that all damage is a damage roll, that the terms are one in the same.

As you say, no rules exist for "non-rolled" damage. That doesn't mean the concept is implicitly and silently rolled into some other damage related section. If we did do that, and accept for the moment that it's proper to interpret a section's heading as a game term that is defined by the section's content, we would be taking the very obvious risk of including something under that definition that wasn't meant to be there. In this particular case, the plain English meaning of this section's heading specifically excludes the concept you're trying to include in the section and incorporate into the heading's definition as a game term. That should at the very least give you reason to reconsider, even as we continue to accept the section's heading as a game term defined by the section's content.

As to that issue, let's try an exercise under the same assumption as before. No rules exist for a group of non-player characters. There is a heading for "6. Come Together" in the first chapter of the PHB, which deals with groups of PCs. There is no heading for naming a group of any other character type. It is my interpretation that all groups of NPCs are 6. Come Togethers, that the terms are one and the same. This is clearly silly. A section's heading may or may not be a game term, or part of a numbered list, or any number of things, but the only thing it must necessarily be is a brief introduction to the section. Assuming anything more is reading too much into it.

The proposed equivalence between "damage roll" and "damage" depends on a series of arguments that, even if they weren't logical stretches, require one to ignore perfectly good plain English definitions for the terms in the first place. I see no reason why such an awkward misnomer as "Damage Roll" would be chosen over the obvious alternative, nor do I think the entire 5e community's misunderstanding of the term would go unaddressed for so long. It just doesn't make sense on any level.

RSP

2019-03-10, 11:34 PM

I disagree that a off hand clause under the explanation of how hit points works constitutes as a definition of what damage is. Nothing about that says a single word about flat damage, beyond damage existing.

Damage exists and it explains how it’s used in relation to hit points, which is how it matters in the game of 5e. What more do you want in an explaination?

“A creature’s current hit points (usually just called hit points) can be any number from the creature’s hit point maximum down to 0. This number changes frequently as a creature takes damage or receives healing.

Whenever a creature takes damage, that damage is subtracted from its hit points. The loss of hit points has no effect on a creature’s capabilities until the creature drops to 0 hit points.”

So if a spell, like AoA, tells us it does 5 cold damage, does this “off hand clause” tell us what to do? Yes. You substract the 5 damage from the creature’s hit points.

Why do you need more in an explaination?

The section following these rules (note these are in fact rules, and not an “off hand clause”, regardless of what you wish them to be), “Damage Rolls”, specifically tells us what to do with damage that involves rolling dice. The existence of rules for rolling for damage does not, however, preclude having damage that is not rolled.

Further, the second sentence continues to tell us that damage rolls=\=damage:

“You roll the damage die or dice, add any modifiers, and apply the damage to your target.”

We know from the rules of rolling that anytime the rules tell us to roll, it will be in the XdY format (that rule being: “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 any damage not in said format, such as AoA, is not what these rules are discussing, quite simply.

AoA doesn’t deal “flat damage,” it just deals damage; which is why you don’t see any rules for “flat damage”, but do see rules for damage. A damage roll is damage that is determined by rolling dice. The two are distinct, though as I stated earlier, you could consider “rolled damage”, and “damage that doesn’t involve rolling dice” to be the two subcategories of damage, if you were so inclined.

Xeko

2019-03-11, 01:19 AM

By this logic, if I refer to my cat as an animal enough times, animal and cat will come to mean the same thing.

Nice one.

It doesn’t matter how many times they appear to use two words interchangeably. You can never conclude that they are the same, unless you have some other reason to think so.

This is pretty fundamental stuff.

7 is 7.

1d8+2 is {3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10}

If you think those are the same, you are wrong. Period.

7 is not the same thing as {3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10} in the same way 1d4 is not the same thing as 1d8. But both are damage rolls.

BurgerBeast

2019-03-11, 01:24 AM

7 is not the same thing as {3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10} in the same way 1d4 is not the same thing as 1d8. But both are damage rolls.

It’s not the same at all.

In the case of 1d8, an 8-sided die is rolled, and the result is the damage.

In the the case of 1d4, a 4-sided did die is rolled and the result is the damage.

In the case of 7, what is rolled?

BurgerBeast

2019-03-11, 01:38 AM

Xeko

2019-03-11, 01:40 AM

Further, the second sentence continues to tell us that damage rolls=\=damage:

“You roll the damage die or dice, add any modifiers, and apply the damage to your target.”

You are neglecting the sentence previous. "Damage Rolls: Every weapon attack, spell, and harmful monster ability will specify how much damage it does." AoA specifies how much damage it does. 5 per level of spell slot used. That is a specified amount of damage. This is a phenomenon that is described under the "Damage Rolls" heading. It is NOT described under the "Hit Points" heading, where you pull your definition of what damage is.

The sentence you are focusing on, out of the context of the rest of the passage, doesn't even mean what you think it means. It doesn't say you MUST roll, only that, if the damage specified by the attack (as mentioned in the previous sentence in the passage) requires a roll, then you make that roll. The hang up here is the use of the common english word "roll" being taken literally, as if the rules were written specifically to always always always use common english. But, as has already been pointed out, in common english, magic missile is an attack, but the game term "attack" does not apply to magic missile.

Now, AoA is probably a bad example, as it is only tangentially relevant to this conversation. The point of the thread was to determine when bonuses such as Barbarian Rage, Hexblade's Curse, the Beastmaster's pet bonus, certain Battle Master maneuvers, the Dueling fighting style, and no fewer than a dozen different spells, would take effect or not. Each of these bonuses use the phrasing "bonus to damage rolls", but we know, definitively, that the Barbarian rage DOES apply to unarmed strikes, which deal flat damage, without rolling. So the question of the thread, is why should, or should not, the same be true for other effects that grant bonuses to damage rolls? Are fists an exception? Or is rage? Or is it a blanket rule that "bonus to damage rolls" can apply to flat amounts as well? It is an irrelevant point for AoA, because AoA is worded as "creature takes damage", and not as "you deal damage to creature". The source of the damage roll is the DM, not the player, so player generated bonuses would not apply.

Xeko

2019-03-11, 01:43 AM

I realized that I didn’t really answer this directly. Page 177 and 196 are different sections and say different things. There’s no reason to interpret as though they depend on one another unless there is a conflict produced by interpreting them independently.

Like everything else on the PHB, take it independently and as written. If there is a conflict, try to find resolution in the text.

There is no conflict, if you take both independently and literally, except in that if you do it that way you apply the Str or Dex bonus twice. Once to the "damage roll", and then again to the resulting "damage". Which we all know is not accurate at all. So, either damage and damage roll are being used to refer to the same thing in this instance, or the entire dnd community has been undershooting their damage for years.

Xeko

2019-03-11, 01:44 AM

It’s not the same at all.

In the case of 1d8, an 8-sided die is rolled, and the result is the damage.

In the the case of 1d4, a 4-sided did die is rolled and the result is the damage.

In the case of 7, what is rolled?

A nothing is rolled, and the result is the damage, or damage roll, as the terms are used interchangeably.

qube

2019-03-11, 02:16 AM

By this logic, if I refer to my cat as an animal enough times, animal and cat will come to mean the same thing.

Nice one.You do know that things like Jet Ski, Bubble Wrap, Jacuzzi, Velcro ... are brand names, right?
So ... yeah ... by nature of the english language.

edit: even more stupid: peopel have been using the word litterly wrong enough times, that it's now officially also considered as valid term for hyperbole. That's litterly insane !
(( ^ correct use, as it's not litterly litterly insane, it's just how languages work))

It doesn’t matter how many times they appear to use two words interchangeably. You can never conclude that they are the same, unless you have some other reason to think so.

This is pretty fundamental stuff.

7 is 7.

1d8+2 is {3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10}

If you think those are the same, you are wrong. Period.OK. Reason. Your bard cast bardspiration. your cleric the magic weapon spell. Those are some of the effects that add bonusses to damage rolls.

I posit that both the 1d8+2 and the 7 would increase.

MaxWilson

2019-03-11, 02:17 AM

page 14 discounts blowguns & unarmed strikes

rage, bardic inspiration, dueling fighting style, manouvres, foe slayer, charger ... work on bonus on damage rolls
but other damage boosting feats, like GWM & sniper apply to damage.

page 176 & 177 note STAT to damage roll, page 196 notes STAT to damage

magic weapons (spells, items, oil of sharpness) add their bonusses to damage rolls (so again, no damage bonus for magic blowgun or magic darts?)

...

so, by design ...
- you can't get 1d6 bardic inspiration damage on your blow dart, or +1 magic damage; but you do get +10 sniper damage?
- a ranger's animal companion get +Prof to damage if it deals 1d2, but not when it's deals 1 damage?
- ...

Somehow, seems unlikely, doesn't it?

I just dropped in to briefly skim a few posts, and this argument jumped out at me as persuasive. I think you're right, there's no reason to treat blowguns and punches differently than shortbows when it comes to things (like Hex) that add to damage rolls. The fact that Sharpshooter happens to say "damage" instead of "damage roll" is just a quirk of writing, not some kind of secret jargon master plan for differentiating Hex and Sharpshooter by only letting Sharpshooter but not Hex or Hunter's Mark or bardic inspiration or magic damage affect blowguns.

So FWIW, you persuaded at least one person who previously had no strong opinion.

BurgerBeast

2019-03-11, 02:35 AM

There is no conflict, if you take both independently and literally, except in that if you do it that way you apply the Str or Dex bonus twice. Once to the "damage roll", and then again to the resulting "damage". Which we all know is not accurate at all. So, either damage and damage roll are being used to refer to the same thing in this instance, or the entire dnd community has been undershooting their damage for years.

There is no justification in the rules for adding the modifier twice. (If you want to give an example of a specific situation, feel free.)

But, that probably doesn’t mean anything to you because no justification is zero justification and zero is a number therefore it provides you with a number of justifications.

BurgerBeast

2019-03-11, 03:04 AM

You do know that things like Jet Ski, Bubble Wrap, Jacuzzi, Velcro ... are brand names, right?
So ... yeah ... by nature of the english language.

I’m not denying this phenomenon. In Canada people say Coke and mean cola. That does not make them the same thing. I think you know what I mean.

edit: even more stupid: peopel have been using the word litterly wrong enough times, that it's now officially also considered as valid term for hyperbole. That's litterly insane !
(( ^ correct use, as it's not litterly litterly insane, it's just how languages work))

Again, I’m not denying this phenomenon. The meanings of words can change. But underlying concepts do not. Just because “literally” has been accepted to encompass other concepts does not mean that those concepts are now equivalent. I think you know what I mean.

OK. Reason. Your bard cast bardspiration. your cleric the magic weapon spell. Those are some of the effects that add bonusses to damage rolls.

I posit that both the 1d8+2 and the 7 would increase.

Yes, I did the 1d8+2 and 7 thing to draw attention to this. The reason this seems fine is because we understand that the 7 comes from a simulated average roll of 5, plus 2.

But some damage effects are not rolled, and there is no obviously identifiable “roll” component. In those cases, there is no RAW justification to consider it a damage roll.

One thing I had considered mentioning before, but will probably only make things worse:

If a fighter attacks with a +2 +1 sword, we can say:

1d8 damage comes from the sword. That’s damage.

3 damage comes from the fighter’s strength modifier. That’s damage.

1 damage from the magical enchantment. That’s damage.

Since “damage” and “damage roll” are equivalent, the 3 is a damage roll and the 1 is a damage roll. A modifier cannot do “damage” without being a “damage roll” because these are interchangeable.

So modifiers themselves are “damage rolls,” which means that damage (roll) modifiers apply to damage (roll) modifiers (i.e. to themselves, endlessly).

thrdeye

2019-03-11, 05:12 AM

I just dropped in to briefly skim a few posts, and this argument jumped out at me as persuasive. I think you're right, there's no reason to treat blowguns and punches differently than shortbows when it comes to things (like Hex) that add to damage rolls. The fact that Sharpshooter happens to say "damage" instead of "damage roll" is just a quirk of writing, not some kind of secret jargon master plan for differentiating Hex and Sharpshooter by only letting Sharpshooter but not Hex or Hunter's Mark or bardic inspiration or magic damage affect blowguns.

So FWIW, you persuaded at least one person who previously had no strong opinion.

The counterargument that's been presented is that these discrepancies are simply oversights. They're quirks resulting from a system of complex rule interactions. As a practical matter, the designers can't be expected to contemplate every little thing in light of every other little thing because human minds aren't capable of doing that with a system of this size. In all likelihood they simply weren't thinking of Sharpshooter's interaction with blowguns when they wrote it. We shouldn't infer some master plan from that, but we shouldn't infer some overarching damage classification system either.

It's extremely unlikely that "Damage Roll" was meant to serve as an umbrella term for all damage and we were meant to glean this information by assuming intended universal applicability for certain mechanics, identifying obscure rule interactions that prevent those mechanics from applying in certain instances, and working backwards to invent new rules that would prevent those discrepancies. That's the primary point of contention here. Houseruling a magic blowgun is no big deal.

By the way, Hex and Hunter's Mark do work on blowgun and unarmed damage per RAW. Bardic inspiration can be used for attack but not damage rolls so there's no discrepancy there either.

Crgaston

2019-03-11, 06:49 AM

The counterargument that's been presented is that these discrepancies are simply oversights. They're quirks resulting from a system of complex rule interactions. As a practical matter, the designers can't be expected to contemplate every little thing in light of every other little thing because human minds aren't capable of doing that with a system of this size. In all likelihood they simply weren't thinking of Sharpshooter's interaction with blowguns when they wrote it. We shouldn't infer some master plan from that, but we shouldn't infer some overarching damage classification system either.

It's extremely unlikely that "Damage Roll" was meant to serve as an umbrella term for all damage and we were meant to glean this information by assuming intended universal applicability for certain mechanics, identifying obscure rule interactions that prevent those mechanics from applying in certain instances, and working backwards to invent new rules that would prevent those discrepancies. That's the primary point of contention here. Houseruling a magic blowgun is no big deal.

By the way, Hex and Hunter's Mark do work on blowgun and unarmed damage per RAW. Bardic inspiration can be used for attack but not damage rolls so there's no discrepancy there either.

Just for clarity, a Valor Bard’s Combat Inspiration can be applied to “damage rolls.”

RSP

2019-03-11, 07:00 AM

You are neglecting the sentence previous. "Damage Rolls: Every weapon attack, spell, and harmful monster ability will specify how much damage it does." AoA specifies how much damage it does. 5 per level of spell slot used. That is a specified amount of damage. This is a phenomenon that is described under the "Damage Rolls" heading. It is NOT described under the "Hit Points" heading, where you pull your definition of what damage is.

I’m neglecting nothing. That sentence does, indeed state abilities specify their damage. However, as I’ve pointed out previously in this thread, that doesn’t mean it’s unique to damage rolls. The sentence tells us abilities tell us how much damage they do. The sentence does not say all abilities tell you what the damage roll is.

Again, prior to this section:

we already know what damage is;
we already know that some damage is rolled and some isn’t;
and that we find out when to do either from the rules. (“On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise.”)

The “Damage Rolls” section, does, in fact, discuss damage rolls. Just as it tells us it does.

The section is not called “Damage” because it isn’t a section on damage in general; just a section on the rules for when you need to roll dice to determine what number you’re using for damage.

The designers didn’t mess up when they titled that section: it’s meant to be “Damage Rolls”

The sentence you are focusing on, out of the context of the rest of the passage, doesn't even mean what you think it means. It doesn't say you MUST roll, only that, if the damage specified by the attack (as mentioned in the previous sentence in the passage) requires a roll, then you make that roll.

You’re just flat out lying now. The sentence says “You roll the damage die or dice, add any modifiers, and apply the damage to your target.” No where does it say if. It does, in fact, say “you roll”, which isn’t unclear.

The hang up here is the use of the common english word "roll" being taken literally, as if the rules were written specifically to always always always use common english.

Again, the rules tell us how to use the word roll: “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.”

I don’t know how you can read this rule on how to use the word roll in the 5e Rules, and then say “oh, they don’t mean actually rolling dice!”

This is a significant flaw in your logic, as you’re assuming the rules say the exact opposite of what they actually say. Reread the rule on rolling dice, then tell me how it doesn’t mean to actually roll dice.

Each of these bonuses use the phrasing "bonus to damage rolls", but we know, definitively, that the Barbarian rage DOES apply to unarmed strikes, which deal flat damage, without rolling.

I’d like you to show the RAW that says Rage bonus damage “definitively” says it applies to unarmed strikes.

Xeko

2019-03-11, 08:30 AM

I’m neglecting nothing. That sentence does, indeed state abilities specify their damage. However, as I’ve pointed out previously in this thread, that doesn’t mean it’s unique to damage rolls. The sentence tells us abilities tell us how much damage they do. The sentence does not say all abilities tell you what the damage roll is.

Again, prior to this section:

we already know what damage is;

No, we don't, we only know how Damage interacts with Hit Points (by reducing them).

You’re just flat out lying now. The sentence says “You roll the damage die or dice, add any modifiers, and apply the damage to your target.” No where does it say if. It does, in fact, say “you roll”, which isn’t unclear.

Again, the rules tell us how to use the word roll: “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.”

And how exactly is "when you need to" not an "If" statement? Nothing about that says you MUST roll in every instance.

I’d like you to show the RAW that says Rage bonus damage “definitively” says it applies to unarmed strikes.

I'm assuming a Mike Mearls Quote will suffice?

Corran

2019-03-11, 08:59 AM

7 is not the same thing as {3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10} in the same way 1d4 is not the same thing as 1d8. But both are damage rolls.
Can be, depending on time. Sounds absurd? It isn't really. But if it sounds like a stretch, consider that it's you and qube that try to set extreme conditions what a damage roll is, so that you can stuck yourselves between two paradoxes. The first one would be that you add mods twice when you roll damage (once on the dice and then on the total), and the second is that damage rolls do not involve rolls (while 0 rolls is technically correct, it does not make sense in the context of the game, but I will not make the slightest effort to try to convince anyone about that because I don't think it's worth it).

I posit that both the 1d8+2 and the 7 would increase.
Why? Did someone say that a damage roll must not include modifiers added on the result of the roll? The only implication of a damage roll is that at least one die is being rolled. If we add sth in the end it will not make it less of a damage roll. For what you said to hold, we must have sth supporting that if you add something to a damage roll it stops being a damage roll, which does not make any sense to me and it isn't very relevant anyway.

RSP

2019-03-11, 11:02 AM

No, we don't, we only know how Damage interacts with Hit Points (by reducing them).

We know what damage is in 5e: the number you subtract from HPs. What else do you want? There’s also “Describing the Effects of Damage“ if you want more information on how that subtraction of HPs can be described in the in-game world.

Damage is the subtraction of a creature’s “physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck.”

And how exactly is "when you need to" not an "If" statement? Nothing about that says you MUST roll in every instance.

So you’re saying because the rules on rolling say “When you need to roll dice...”, the rules under the section title “Damage Rolls,” which tell you it’s a specific instance of the when you need to roll dice, is actually not an instance of when you need to roll dice?

I’m not meaning this to be rude, but I don’t think you’re correctly comprehending the book.

Here’s how it works:

A) The rule on rolling tells us how to roll, when it’s required by the rules, and that rolls require telling you how many dice to roll, and which of type of die to use.

B) The rules on damage rolls tells us how to use rolls to come up with a damage amount.

B, by necessity, requires A, because we’ve already been told B requires rolls.

If you’re rolling for damage, you’re using the rules for rolling.

There is no “if” in the “Damage Rolls” rule “You roll the damage die or dice, add any modifiers, and apply the damage to your target,” because it’s already telling you it’s a roll the header (and again in the second sentence).

So again, your original post of “It doesn't say you MUST roll, only that, if the damage specified by the attack (as mentioned in the previous sentence in the passage) requires a roll, then you make that roll” is wrong. The “Damage Rolls” ruleset doesn’t in anyway say “if rolling for damage is required,” but does actually say a roll is required.

I'm assuming a Mike Mearls Quote will suffice?

I don’t think you understand what RAW means. No, a quote from Mearls will not suffice.

Xeko

2019-03-11, 12:03 PM

Why? Did someone say that a damage roll must not include modifiers added on the result of the roll? The only implication of a damage roll is that at least one die is being rolled. If we add sth in the end it will not make it less of a damage roll. For what you said to hold, we must have sth supporting that if you add something to a damage roll it stops being a damage roll, which does not make any sense to me and it isn't very relevant anyway.

The entire purpose of this thread is for the benefit of effects like Barbarian Rage or Hexblades Curse that specifically say "bonus to damage rolls". The argument is that if you do not roll for the damage, it is no longer considered a damage roll, and therefore the bonus would not apply. Myself, and a few others, disagree wholeheartedly with that assessment. What you are proposing is the exact opposite of our argument. We think all damage counts as a damage roll, even if zero dice are used. Modifiers being added or not is irrelevant in that case, and if anything, more Mods would apply with our more inclusive interpretation, not less.

Xeko

2019-03-11, 12:10 PM

So you’re saying because the rules on rolling say “When you need to roll dice...”, the rules under the section title “Damage Rolls,” which tell you it’s a specific instance of the when you need to roll dice, is actually not an instance of when you need to roll dice?

And what gives you.that impression? What about the passage suggests its sole purpose it to describe when you roll the dice? Nothing about the passage suggests that to me. The entire passage is about how to calculate damage. Not when. And it is the only passage that describes how to calculate damage. The passage on hit points describes how damage interacts with hit points, and arguably what damage is, but not how to determine it. It doesnt even say that attacks tell you what damage they do. It is the damage roll heading that specifies that.

B) The rules on damage rolls tells us how to use rolls to come up with a damage amount.

B, by necessity, requires A, because we’ve already been told B requires rolls.

No we have not been told that B requires rolls. B is the rules on how to determine damage. Either the attack specifies, or you roll the appropriate die or dice.

There is no “if” in the “Damage Rolls” rule “You roll the damage die or dice, add any modifiers, and apply the damage to your target,” because it’s already telling you it’s a roll the header (and again in the second sentence).

The header is a header. It is not instruction, it is a name.

qube

2019-03-11, 12:51 PM

Yes, I did the 1d8+2 and 7 thing to draw attention to this. The reason this seems fine is because we understand that the 7 comes from a simulated average roll of 5, plus 2.

But some damage effects are not rolled, and there is no obviously identifiable “roll” component. In those cases, there is no RAW justification to consider it a damage roll.Agreed. And there in lies the problem.

If RAW has to be interpreted that static damage doesn't count as a damage roll, that 7 wouldn't get boosted by the same things that 1d8+2 gets.

If a fighter attacks with a +2 +1 sword, we can say:

1d8 damage comes from the sword. That’s damage.

3 damage comes from the fighter’s strength modifier. That’s damage.

1 damage from the magical enchantment. That’s damage.I HIGHLY disagree (rendering the rest of your argument obsolite). As we're talking about terms, here, you can't just substitute words and then consider the argument valid.

1d8 is damage. It's in the damage column in the table

the +3 is IIRC refered to as a bonus to the damage roll (ref. p 176) ... or it could be the bonus to damage (ref page 196)
... but apparenlty only one of those applies ...

likewise, the +1 of magic isn't damage, but a bonus to the damage roll (ref. the description of that magic item)
----
Likewise, I don't think your reasoning holds up even if it was damage; as sniper increases damage, in your logic, with all three being damage, the sniper feat would deal (1d8+10) + (1+10) + (3+10)

The counterargument that's been presented is that these discrepancies are simply oversights. They're quirks resulting from a system of complex rule interactions.Here's the problem. I don't see any evidence for this.

(I've pointed out multiple times, that in the end, I'm still gonna play rage increases punches, badic valor increases blowguns, but boosts to damage rolls won't work on armor of Aegis ... But that doesn't mean I'm going to see things in RAW that aren't there)

> I posit that both the 1d8+2 and the 7 would increase.

Why?I'm going to assume you missed the part were we're talking about damage of a monster being "7(1d8+2)" , and thus aren't implying that you don't understand why I posit that it would be quite silly to assume a DM that uses the 7 doesn't add a heap of bonusses, while the DM that uses 1d8+2, does.

For what you said to hold, we must have sth supporting that if you add something to a damage roll it stops being a damage roll, which does not make any sense to me and it isn't very relevant anyway.I don't understand how that's implied or required for my reasoning. If this still applies, could you elaborate?

In my reasoning, you have the damage (roll) (static or variable); (static or variable) bonusses are added to it. And that's it. Page 196 and 176 talking about the exact same thing (as damage & damage roll are the same thing), and there's no difference between the boost from great weapon master (bonus to damage) and that of charger (bonus to damage roll)

We know what damage is in 5e: the number you subtract from HPs.Well, it's not, for starters.

considering that "1d8" isn't a number, but it is the damage of a longsword (ref weapon table, for one)

You’re just flat out lying now. The sentence says “You roll the damage die or dice, add any modifiers, and apply the damage to your target.” No where does it say if. It does, in fact, say “you roll”, which isn’t unclear.Here's the problem ... *I* don't read that as an absolute that there MUST be dice to be rolled. Just like I wouldn't come home empty handed from a trip to the store if the store didn't have 1 of the items on the list. I'm going "oh , no mlik dice, skip that step then"

You can't claim it's clear - if you're holding a different position then me.

I don’t think you understand what RAW means.Oh, I do. I do .

RAW is Rules As Written.

For example, when it's written "you roll", by RAW, that doesn't say there has to be at least one die.
That's how you interprete it - making it RAI, opposite to RAW.
Other people might interprete that differently.

Kadesh

2019-03-11, 12:56 PM

{Scrubbed}

Ganymede

2019-03-11, 12:58 PM

Nine pages of people being tricked into arguing over whether you can add curse damage to Maddening Hex.

I know we all love to argue, but is there no limit?

RSP

2019-03-11, 12:59 PM

And what gives you.that impression? What about the passage suggests its sole purpose it to describe when you roll the dice? Nothing about the passage suggests that to me.

Nothing about “damage rolls” or “roll for damage” suggests that it involves rolls? Are you serious??

The entire passage is about how to calculate damage. Not when. And it is the only passage that describes how to calculate damage. The passage on hit points describes how damage interacts with hit points, and arguably what damage is, but not how to determine it. It doesnt even say that attacks tell you what damage they do. It is the damage roll heading that specifies that.

How you determine damage comes from the ability that causes it.

For AoA, the spell states: “If a creature hits you with a melee attack while you have these hit points, the creature takes 5 cold damage.” That’s the “when” and the “amount” of damage. There is no calculating because it’s just 5 damage.

Compare this to the “Making an Attack” ruleset, the third step:

“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”

On a hit, you roll damage, unless the Attack has rules that specify otherwise.

Here we’re instructed to roll for damage, and told Attacks roll for damage unless specified otherwise (as is the case with the Blowgun and Unarmed Strikes, each specifies something other than rolling).

So the “Hit Points” ruleset states what damage is and how to use it. Abilities state what damage they do (if they in fact cause damage), and the “Damage Rolls” ruleset states how to calculate and resolve using dice to determine a damage amount (that is, “rolling for damage”).

No we have not been told that B requires rolls. B is the rules on how to determine damage. Either the attack specifies, or you roll the appropriate die or dice.

“Roll for damage” and “damage roll” each state a roll is, in fact, required.

The header is a header. It is not instruction, it is a name.

A header that tells us what the following ruleset is referring to. In this case, it’s called “Damage Rolls” because the ruleset it precedes is for rolls that determine a damage amount.

You’ve gotten to the point where you’re literally stating that the “Damage Rolls” section title has no meaning. Do you really believe that’s how section titles work? It’s really easy to see that the Hit Point section refers to Hit Points, Attack Rolls to attack rolls, etc.

Making the argument that the section title has no bearing on the following rule set isn’t logical at all: if you want to learn about rolling for damage, you look at the section titled “Damage Rolls.”

qube

2019-03-11, 01:05 PM

Nine pages of people being tricked into arguing over whether you can add curse damage to Maddening Hex.

I know we all love to argue, but is there no limit?It's an actual psychological thing (of which I don't know the name) . The longer people discuss, the more they 'dig in' and refuse to give any ground to their counterpart.

After all, you've got 9 pages of "investment" ... if you admit defeat, you waited your time. while if you win, you're brain will will releas all che chemicals of winning

... even though all you did is convince 1 random person you'll probbably never ever even meet ...

Kadesh

2019-03-11, 01:08 PM

Nine pages of people being tricked into arguing over whether you can add curse damage to Maddening Hex.

I know we all love to argue, but is there no limit?

Oh the inhumanity. Won't somebody think of the children?

Corran

2019-03-11, 01:08 PM

The entire purpose of this thread is for the benefit of effects like Barbarian Rage or Hexblades Curse that specifically say "bonus to damage rolls". The argument is that if you do not roll for the damage, it is no longer considered a damage roll, and therefore the bonus would not apply. Myself, and a few others, disagree wholeheartedly with that assessment. What you are proposing is the exact opposite of our argument. We think all damage counts as a damage roll, even if zero dice are used. Modifiers being added or not is irrelevant in that case, and if anything, more Mods would apply with our more inclusive interpretation, not less.
The reasons you have for wanting to say that a damage roll includes damage that didn't use rolls towards their calculation have no effect whatsoever to the discussion about whether the word ''roll'' has any relevance or not. You give to the word roll a meaning that is so absurd within the game context (what's stopping me from saying that my EK8 is actually an EK8/wizard0 and hence does not have access to 2nd level slots?), and the reason is that because if that holds then the game profits because X,Y,Z? That's preposterous. You should be arguing about how it should be changed from damage roll to just damage, not try to twist the meaning of words (within the context of the game) to get to the desired outcome. Hiding behind the argument that 0 rolls still counts as rolling, is so weak and obviously motivated by other reasons, and it makes no sense whatsoever within the context of the game. Listen, I understand that sometimes we don't like the rules, or changes to the rules. But it's one thing to say you don't like sth or that you think it takes value away from the balance or the fun of the game, and a completely different thing to try to ''remove'' it and justify it by using extremely far stretched arguments. I have no horse in the race, I am only involved in this conversation because the line of arguing of one side strikes to me (and this is just my own personal opinion and targets only the line of arguing, not the people expressing it) as sth that it fluctuating between absence of common sense and cunning.

RSP

2019-03-11, 01:21 PM

Well, it's not, for starters.

considering that "1d8" isn't a number, but it is the damage of a longsword (ref weapon table, for one)

1d8 is, indeed not a number. It does, however, fall into what 5e determines to be a “roll.”

“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 when using a longsword for an attack, determining the damage it does, involves making a roll (as the XdY format indicates).

We can look at Making an Attack to see how this works where it, again, calls it out as requiring a roll:

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

So is the longsword involved in the attack? Did the Attack hit? If so, roll damage (unless the particular attack says otherwise). Want to know what’s involved when you need to “roll damage”? Look at the ruleset entitled “Damage Rolls” which states the rules for rolling for damage.

Here's the problem ... *I* don't read that as an absolute that there MUST be dice to be rolled. Just like I wouldn't come home empty handed from a trip to the store if the store didn't have 1 of the items on the list. I'm going "oh , no mlik dice, skip that step then"

You can't claim it's clear - if you're holding a different position then me.

So by your reasoning, if a 2-year-old can’t understand a paragraph, it cannot be considered clear? Of course it could. Just because two people don’t understand the same reading the same way, doesn’t mean what they’re reading isn’t clear. In addition to differening understandings of logic, one or both could be forgetting, or unaware of what else is entailed in the reading. This could be not understanding what a word, or words mean.

Pertinent to our discussion, is what is involved in the 5e Rules.

The rules tell us how to deal with rolls, and specifically state “the rules tell you how many dice to roll of a certain type.” So if no stating of required die type and number to roll is made, it’s not a roll in 5e.

Oh, I do. I do .

RAW is Rules As Written.

For example, when it's written "you roll", by RAW, that doesn't say there has to be at least one die.
That's how you interprete it - making it RAI, opposite to RAW.
Other people might interprete that differently.

5e does, in fact, state a roll requires a statement of die type and number of dice to be rolled:

“In these rules, the different dice are referred to by the letter d followed by the number of sides: d4, d6, d8, d10, d12, and d20.”

So when reading the 5e Rules, dice are referred to as d4, d6, etc.

“When you need to roll dice, the rules tell you how many dice to roll of a certain type...”

So when the 5e Rules tell you to roll dice, they will tell you how many of the specified die type need to be rolled.

So rolls in the 5e Rules will have the XdY nomenclature.

So when the rules state “you roll”, they are in fact, referring to the rolling of dice.

Corran

2019-03-11, 01:25 PM

In my reasoning, you have the damage (roll) (static or variable); (static or variable) bonusses are added to it. And that's it. Page 196 and 176 talking about the exact same thing (as damage & damage roll are the same thing), and there's no difference between the boost from great weapon master (bonus to damage) and that of charger (bonus to damage roll)
So you adopt the least likely (or one of the two equally likely if you prefer) interpretation about what a damage roll is.

1) If the damage roll is just the random variable then we end up adding ability mods twice (which we know that this is not what it was intended, but under that interpretation it would be logical, while 0 rolls remains illogical).
2) If the damage roll is the result of the random variable (in which case damage and damage roll are indeed indistinguishable) then you add ability modifiers only once, which is how we know is intended to play out.

I think that you pick the first interpretation because you want to blackmail a generalization (ie that always damage roll = damage) for which I have not yet seen evidence. You try to blackmail this generalization by creating the need to choose one of 'adding damage twice' or 'damage = damage rolls always'. Under your interpretation (which is the first of the two), you actually legitimize the 'adding damage twice' option, but you do not give any weight to how 0 rolls is still rolling. You just try to give it weight by saying that adding mods twice is obviously not intended. And it isn't. But guess who made it intended by using one of the possible interpretations? You!

Xeko

2019-03-11, 01:53 PM

And still people misuse terms and fail to understand the English language. "Do this" is not the same as "you must do this", ESPECIALLY when the thing in question is presented as a single item in a list. The groccery shopping analogy has been used a few times. If you have a shopping list, 1) milk, 2) eggs, 3) butter, 4) cereal... but the store doesnt have any eggs... do you just abandon the list all together? No, you skip that item and continue getting the rest of the list. In the same way, the damage rolls passage is essentially "how to make a damage roll. Step 1 identify the damage listed on the ability, step 2 roll the appropriate dice, step 3 add the appropriate modifiers and bonuses, step 4 apply the damage". Just like the grocery list, if you are missing one of the items, you dont abandon the whole list, you still continue on with the rest of it. You would have no problem skipping the "add modifiers" step, because some attacks dont have modifiers. So why is it so hard for you to skip the "roll appropriate dice" step, when no dice are specified in the attack?