extra + 0?

[NaughtyTiger]

We were up against a critter that was immune to non-magical BPS. The ranger hit with his non-magical shortbow + hunter's mark?

He rolled his 2d6 + 3 = 8 damage....
DM hesitated, then said okay...

at break we discussed that roll... how much damage should the ranger have done?

i said 3 from hunter's mark...

our monk said 0... cuz hunter's mark does "extra 1d6" and extra of 0 is 0...
he pointed to the net + hunter's mark.

so i pose to you, did the ranger do:
(2 + 3) + 3 [hm] = 8 magical piercing
0*(2 + 3) + 3 [hm] = 3 magical piercing
0*(2 + 3) + 0 [hm] = 0 magical piercing.

[heavyfuel]

I agree with your Monk. You can't deal "extra" damage if don't deal damage in the first place.

[Monster Manuel]

Hunter's mark triggers "when you hit" not "when you damage".

I don't see that Hunter's Mark changes the damage type (it adds a condition to the creature being marked, not the weapon used), so a nonmagical piercing attack is still a nonmagical piercing attack. A creature that's immune is still immune. But the spell causes 1d6 damage to the target when hit, so I don't see why it wouldn't apply even if that hit does no damage, due to immunity.

I'd go with 3; none from the arrow, 3 for the Mark.

[Terebin]

I started thinking you could make a case for 8 or 0 but in typing it out I think I came to decide 0 is the correct answer.

Hunter's Mark is a spell cast on the *target*, not the weapon attack. Wording in the spell does not specify that the attack becomes magical, nor does it describe a magical kind of attack. It's your regular weapon attack. If the attack counted as magical in regards to overcoming resisitance and immunity, that is language we see inserted in other contexts where it does. So I think it's 0.

[heavyfuel]

Hunter's mark triggers "when you hit" not "when you damage".

I don't think you'll find anyone arguing otherwise. The argument is the word "extra" not the word "hit".

Would you say Hunter's Mark + Net deals 1d6 damage?

[nickl_2000]

I don't think you'll find anyone arguing otherwise. The argument is the word "extra" not the word "hit".

Would you say Hunter's Mark + Net deals 1d6 damage?

FWIW Mike Mearl's says that extra damage from sneak attack wasn't intended to work with a net
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/09/02/sneak-net/ and JC agrees https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/956930977795735552?lang=en

Logic would follow that Hunter's Mark would be the same and that the Monk would be right that it is 0 overall damage from the ranger.

[NaughtyTiger]

If I hadn't mentioned the monk's argument of Net + Hunter's Mark, would that change your answer?


as far as crawford... He disagrees with himself...
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/12/16/does-hunters-mark-damage-magical/

[Dienekes]

I agree with your Monk. You can't deal "extra" damage if don't deal damage in the first place.

It's wonky. But I think I agree with the 3. Otherwise weapons like Frost Brand which deals "an extra +1d6 cold damage" would interact against a creature that is immune to slashing but vulnerable to cold damage would take 0 damage which is clearly not the design intent.

I'd argue that the damage is dealt, it is just then ignored if the creature has immunity.

I don't think immunity is otherwise defined in the rules to give a more accurate assessment of the situation. If it is, I haven't found it after a quick glance.

[heavyfuel]

If I hadn't mentioned the monk's argument of Net + Hunter's Mark, would that change your answer?


as far as crawford... He disagrees with himself...
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/12/16/does-hunters-mark-damage-magical/

No. Matter of fact, I didn't even mention the Net in my first reply. I just agree with the Monk and Mike Mearls that "extra" damage requires at least some damage as base.

I also don't think Crawford's answer contradicts this vision. He simply says the damage from Hunter's Mark is magical, and even clarifies that this is only in reference to the spell's damage. So if you were fighting a creature with Resistance to non-magical BPS and rolled "10 damage + 4 damage from HM", you'd deal "5+4".

[nickl_2000]

No. Matter of fact, I didn't even mention the Net in my first reply. I just agree with the Monk and Mike Mearls that "extra" damage requires at least some damage as base.

I also don't think Crawford's answer contradicts this vision. He simply says the damage from Hunter's Mark is magical, and even clarifies that this is only in reference to the spell's damage. So if you were fighting a creature with Resistance to non-magical BPS and rolled "10 damage + 4 damage from HM", you'd deal "5+4".

That is how I read that second link as well.

[Keltest]

No. Matter of fact, I didn't even mention the Net in my first reply. I just agree with the Monk and Mike Mearls that "extra" damage requires at least some damage as base.

I also don't think Crawford's answer contradicts this vision. He simply says the damage from Hunter's Mark is magical, and even clarifies that this is only in reference to the spell's damage. So if you were fighting a creature with Resistance to non-magical BPS and rolled "10 damage + 4 damage from HM", you'd deal "5+4".

I guess the question becomes "is dealing 0 damage different from dealing no damage?"

[Willie the Duck]

I guess the question becomes "is dealing 0 damage different from dealing no damage?"

I feel like, at least at the intent level, yes.

Adding damage to something that deals no damage is messing with the intended implementation of the thing. In 3e there was a spell called Locate City that had a huge area of effect*, and certain metamagic effects could add a small amount of damage to area spells. This created an atom-bomb scale commoner-killer. In the same way, I think being able to add damage-ons to non-damaging effects is has the potential to circumvent intended use for basic game mechanics.
*Arguably the primary issue is that the spell should have worded to having a range instead of area of effect, but that's water under the bridge now.

Dealing 0 damage is the case of the cold-vulnerable, slashing immune creature hit by the frostbrand. That feels like the system working as intended.

Personally I think Hunter's Mark should be reworded to be "until the spell ends, damaging weapon attacks that you make that hit the target are increased by 1d6," or similar (I'm sure there's some glaring error that I made in this rewording too, but you get the idea).

[Keltest]

I feel like, at least at the intent level, yes.

Adding damage to something that deals no damage is messing with the intended implementation of the thing. In 3e there was a spell called Locate City that had a huge area of effect*, and certain metamagic effects could add a small amount of damage to area spells. This created an atom-bomb scale commoner-killer. In the same way, I think being able to add damage-ons to non-damaging effects is has the potential to circumvent intended use for basic game mechanics.
*Arguably the primary issue is that the spell should have worded to having a range instead of area of effect, but that's water under the bridge now.

Dealing 0 damage is the case of the cold-vulnerable, slashing immune creature hit by the frostbrand. That feels like the system working as intended.

Personally I think Hunter's Mark should be reworded to be "until the spell ends, damaging weapon attacks that you make that hit the target are increased by 1d6," or similar (I'm sure there's some glaring error that I made in this rewording too, but you get the idea).

Thats my inclination as well. It just starts to get weird when you look at things like attacking with a str penalty or some other source of flat damage reduction if it doesnt count as dealing damage.

[Keravath]

The wording of hunter's mark is the following:

"You choose a creature you can see within range and mystically mark it as your quarry. Until the spell ends, you deal an extra 1d6 damage to the target whenever you hit it with a weapon attack"

All that is required is that you hit the target. You don't need to do any effective damage to it with the weapon attack.

The "extra 1d6" from hunter's mark is done by the SPELL. It is magical. (Since Sage Advice Compendium for clarification if you wish but it indicates that any damage caused by a spell is considered magical).

In your example the damage appeared to be d6+3 from the bow and an additional d6 from HM. He rolled a 2 for weapon damage and a 3 for hunter's mark. Since the target is immune to non-magical BPS, the weapon attack (arrow) does no damage while hunter's mark does 3 magical piercing damage to the target.

The total damage taken by the target is 3 in this case.

P.S. If a target is immune to damage then the damage hits and is just reduced to zero by the damage resistance.

Would a BPS resistant creature hit by a frost brand take full cold damage or halved cold damage? The answer is full cold damage since it not resistant to cold, only to the slashing component of the damage received. The same is true for immunity. A creature immune to the slashing damage in an attack would still take full cold, fire, acid or whatever damage. Does a creature immune to piecing damage not take any poison damage when struck by a poisoned dagger?

The rules are supposed to say what they mean. A creature immune to BPS take no BPS damage but other damage types done simultaneously are not affected.

[diplomancer]

My answer is 3. There is no such thing as magical or non-magical piercing damage, there's only piercing damage. Immunity and resistance cares about the source of the damage, not only about the damage type.

The source of 5 hit points of damage was a nonmagical attack, to which the target is immune. But the source of 3 points of damage was a spell, and so immunity does not apply to this damage.

A net is different. A net does not have a damage type, and therefore sneak attack damage of a non-existent type cannot be added to it*. The same reasoning would apply to a Ranger using a net with Hunter's Mark.

An interesting case would be Net+Hex. RAW, I believe it should do 1d6 necrotic damage, but it feels wrong.

* by RAW, sneak attack does not have a damage type. But that is almost certainly an oversight, and I'm kinda surprised that they haven't errated it yet. I suppose it's safe to say that, RAI, sneak attack has the same damage type of the attack which triggered it.

[NaughtyTiger]

I am fully aware that I am asking for your feedback, so I m not gonna argue "I'm right, you're wrong" but I am having trouble with this statement.


Dealing 0 damage is the case of the cold-vulnerable, slashing immune creature hit by the frostbrand. That feels like the system working as intended.

Given a creature that takes double the damage from ice based attacks,

if it was attacked by a frost brand shortsword, the frost from the blade causes it to shriek in pain
if it was attacked by a frost brand scimitar, the frost from blade washes harmlessly over it.
To me that feels like a glitch...

[NaughtyTiger]

If you think it is 0 damage because of the wording,
which word or short phrase would you use to add the damage on the hit, even if the target is immune to the weapon damage?

[OldTrees1]

The ranger dealt 1d6+3 piercing and 1d6 magical piercing.
The critter was immune to the non-magical piercing, so they only took the 3 magical piercing damage.

But I understand the word "extra" is a poor choice.

"plus 1d6 magical piercing damage" is pretty clear.
"if successfully damaged, they take a further 1d6 magical piercing damage" is pretty clear.


Example language:
Make an attack against 1 target within reach of your weapon. If hit they must make a Str save DC 8+Prof+Str or be knocked back 10ft. If successfully damaged, they must make a Con save DC 8+Prof+Con or take a further 2d10 poison damage.

[Willie the Duck]

Given a creature that takes double the damage from ice based attacks,

if it was attacked by a frost brand shortsword, the frost from the blade causes it to shriek in pain
if it was attacked by a frost brand scimitar, the frost from blade washes harmlessly over it.
To me that feels like a glitch...

I guess I didn't communicate correctly. I am in agreement with this point.

[Dienekes]

I guess I didn't communicate correctly. I am in agreement with this point.

Terribly sorry, but could you give your view of the situation one more time, because in my mind “That feels like the system working as intended.” vs “To me that feels like a glitch.” Are quite literally the exact opposite of each other.

So, in the frost band situation, described above. Should the hypothetical creature take cold damage despite being invulnerable to the initial weapon damage? Yes or no.

I and NaughtyTiger think “yes it should still take cold damage.” While I thought your first post was saying “No it should take no damage.”

[Willie the Duck]

Terribly sorry, but could you give your view of the situation one more time, because in my mind “That feels like the system working as intended.” vs “To me that feels like a glitch.” Are quite literally the exact opposite of each other.

So, in the frost band situation, described above. Should the hypothetical creature take cold damage despite being invulnerable to the initial weapon damage? Yes or no.

I and NaughtyTiger think “yes it should still take cold damage.” While I thought your first post was saying “No it should take no damage.”

Adding damage to something that never dealt damage in the first place, such as sneak attack on top of net attack, is circumventing intended use of game mechanics (despite the net using a weapon attack process, it isn't an attack in the same way as other weapon-use is).

Adding damage to something that was an intended damaging attack, but has been reduced to 0, is the system working as intended. The creature may be immune to the weapon, but the frost of a frostbrand (fire of flaming sword, and so forth) still affects them.

[heavyfuel]

I guess the question becomes "is dealing 0 damage different from dealing no damage?"

Perhaps. I wouldn't think less of a DM that ruled as such, and the argument in regards to frostband and fametongue weapons do make thematic sense.

Letting HM deal 3.5 average damage also isn't going to break anything so in a real game I actually might let the Ranger do so as long as they don't try to cheat the system with non-damaging attacks (ie, net)

But, from a rules perspective, I honestly can't see other interpretation than the 0 damage one.

[RSP]

I like the Sneak Attack with net example. We came across another a while ago at my old table: Bladelock with Shield Master has Hex up. Uses the BA shield bash Shove. Per RAW, a Shove is an attack. Using a Shield to bash someone hard enough to push them to the ground or back ~5’ is describable as a “hit”. So, RAW, “you deal an extra 1d6 necrotic damage to the target whenever you hit it with an attack,” applies to the BA Shove, at least as we saw it.

In-game, we played it as the Hex being “bad luck” and having it represented as twisting an ankle or something when getting shoved.

Not sure if that example gives a different view on this (Hex is labeled Necrotic damage so it’s different than HM, in a lot of ways).

Personally, I don’t see “spell=magic damage” (as someone else pointed out upthread there is no “magical piercing” damage type), as a rule, and RAI, play HM as same damage type of the weapon used in the attack. So I’d say it’s 0, for that reason.

Separately, I’d say the 1d6 (from HM) is being added to the damage roll of the attack, not two separate instance of damage. For instance, I don’t think an attack on an NPC Concentrating on a spell by a PC with HM on the NPC would result in two Conc saves. If the PC is using a short sword it’s one 2d6+mod damage roll, not two rolls of 1d6+mod, and then 1d6.

[Fnissalot]

I always assumed the extra and bonus in these wordings pointed to that the effect is not replacing anything. So the hunters mark does not replace the weapons damage on hit, it is dealt in addition to it. Smites uses the same kind of wording and I guess no one would argue that branding smite would be cancelled out due non-magical immunity?

I would argue that it would do 3 damage if the enemy is immune to the non magical part of the damage, but would not apply to nets.


I like the Sneak Attack with net example. We came across another a while ago at my old table: Bladelock with Shield Master has Hex up. Uses the BA shield bash Shove. Per RAW, a Shove is an attack. Using a Shield to bash someone hard enough to push them to the ground or back ~5’ is describable as a “hit”. So, RAW, “you deal an extra 1d6 necrotic damage to the target whenever you hit it with an attack,” applies to the BA Shove, at least as we saw it.

RAW, it is a special melee attack and the rules says nothing at all about it being a hit. You win the contest. You can only hit by making an attack roll.

[theantesse]

Ooh good questions.

I think my interpretation is that HM just increases the damage from the weapon so that a shortsword deals 2d6 damage on a hit in much the same way that sneak attack and superiority dice increase the weapon damage not add a separate damage source. It's like what we used to call Precision Damage...

Basically, I interpret HM, SA, superiority, that extra damage from a Hunter ranger's abilities, etc the ability to make a more accurate or more powerful strike that deals more damage. The mundane abilities are increased skill at placing your strikes in weak points. Hunters Mark to me is like a magical targeting computer, helping you place those strikes. This is instead of it being something like poison or necrosis or burning at the wound site...which is more like a smite or hex spell.

Just my two cents.

[Maelynn]

The spell description of Hunter's Mark is 'whenever you hit'. So Hunter's Mark will be added to the damage pool.

After deciding the damage output, the enemy looks at their respective damage pool to decide what they receive. If they can ignore some of that damage because of immunity, those specific sources will be subtracted from the damage pool.

What's left is the damage that's actually done. In this case, the 3 from Hunter's Mark.

So here's my order:

1 attacker: roll to decide if you hit
2 attacker: add totals of damage
3 target: subtract resistance/immunity where applicable
4 target: take remaining damage

[RSP]

.
RAW, it is a special melee attack and the rules says nothing at all about it being a hit. You win the contest. You can only hit by making an attack roll.

RAW, a Shove is an attack, so it qualifies on that part. Hex requires a “hit” as well. Smacking someone with your shield qualifies as a “hit” in terms of the English language (such as “she hit the goblin with her shield, knocking it down.”)

So RAW, it works just fine.

[Fnissalot]

RAW, a Shove is an attack, so it qualifies on that part. Hex requires a “hit” as well. Smacking someone with your shield qualifies as a “hit” in terms of the English language (such as “she hit the goblin with her shield, knocking it down.”)

So RAW, it works just fine.

It is not a question of the english language, it is that the rules never state that a shove would be considered to be a hit. The shield master shove action does not use the word hit. If you just care about language and not the written rules, I would be able to apply hex to random insults I hit you with as my words are my weapon, but that is not rules as they are written.

[Chronos]

Would you rule that Hex works? Because aside from the fact that Hex specifies a damage type and Hunter's Mark erroneously does not, the wording on the two is identical.

I think that Hunter's Mark probably should have been written as "increases the weapon's damage by 1d6", or the like. I think that was probably their intent. If it had been written that way, then the Hunter's Mark wouldn't work in this case. But it wasn't written in that way.

[RSP]

It is not a question of the english language, it is that the rules never state that a shove would be considered to be a hit. The shield master shove action does not use the word hit. If you just care about language and not the written rules, I would be able to apply hex to random insults I hit you with as my words are my weapon, but that is not rules as they are written.

Instances in the RAW are found where there are discrepancies between game terms, like the “hit” on an Attack Roll you’re describing or deciding if a breath weapon is an “attack”; I believe at one point JC even stated it added confusion in the rules to use common English and game terms together (like the aforementioned “Attack” and [lower-case] “attack”).

The RAW is clear: Hex requires an attack, and a hit; it doesn’t, RAW, require an “Attack Roll” that succeeds. Hitting someone with a shield qualifies.

For instance, if my PC has Hex on their target, and uses their shield in an “attack” (Improvised Weapon rule), and succeeds, they do 1d4+1d6+Str mod in damage.

Likewise, if my PC has Hex on their target, and uses their shield in an “attack” (Shove rules), and succeeds, they do Prone+1d6 necrotic damage.

It’s RAW in that it fulfills the requirements of both being an attack and being a hit.

You can also see this with the old breath weapon and Sanctuary issue (this has been errata’d but it’s a good example of how the confusion in terms works - and the errata actually lends weight to the “attack” argument as it’s the developers noting how the wording [RAW] allowed instances outside of intent [RAI]).

Imagine a Dragonborn Cleric. They cast Sanctuary as a BA, then use their Breath Weapon as their Action on enemy targets.

(Pre-errata) Some DMs will call this an “attack” and Sanctuary will expire. Others won’t and Sanctuary will stay up. It’s all dependent on whether you go by “Attack” or “attack”. Neither view violated RAW, and I’d say consistency in application is what’s important: I’d not appreciate a DM who calls the breath weapon an “attack” for expiring Sanctuary, but then say it wasn’t an “attack” for Hex (because if you damaged the enemies, how did you not “hit” them with the fire, acid, whatever?).

[RSP]

Would you rule that Hex works?

I’m not sure if this was directed at me, but if it was, my personal ruling would be, in the OP scenario, that Hex and HM would each apply and add their 1d6 to the damage roll for a single roll of 2d6+3. However, I go with HM being the weapon damage type, so it would be reduced by the immunity to piercing damage. Hex, being necrotic damage, would not be affected (unless the creature was immune/resistant to necrotic).

Edit: if relevant, I’d not allow SA damage on a net attack because of narrative reasons.

[Keravath]

Hex spell:

"Until the spell ends, you deal an extra 1d6 necrotic damage to the target whenever you hit it with an attack."

"SHOVING A CREATURE
Using the Attack action, you can make a special melee attack to shove a creature, either to knock it prone or push it away from you. If you're able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them. The target of your shove must be no more than one size larger than you, and it must be within your reach. You make a Strength (Athletics) check contested by the target's Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check (the target chooses the ability to use). If you win the contest, you either knock the target prone or push it 5 feet away from you."

"When you make an attack, your attack roll determines whether the attack hits or misses. To make an attack roll, roll a d20 and add the appropriate modifiers. If the total of the roll plus modifiers equals or exceeds the target's Armor Class (AC), the attack hits."

1) Hex adds an extra d6 damage whenever you hit with an attack.
2) Shoving is a special melee attack but NO where in the text does it require a "hit" to be made. A shove explicitly requires an opposed skill check to resolve and if you win the contest you either knock the target prone or push it 5 feet away. A person COULD describe a shove as hitting someone but the rules for a shove do NOT.
3) An attack HITS when you make a d20 roll that equals or exceeds the target's armor class.

This is why Hex does not apply to spells like magic missile because there is no attack and no hit. With a shove there is an attack but no hit.

Shield master uses the same wording ...

"If you take the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to try to shove a creature within 5 feet of you with your shield."

You can shove as a bonus action. NO where in the description of shove is it described as a HIT. A hit specifically requires that a d20 roll be made that equals or exceeds the target's AC.

----

Someone claimed that there is no such thing as "magical piercing damage". This makes no sense ... what type of damage does a magical dagger or rapier do? Magical piercing. A non-magical dagger or rapier does non-magical piercing. There are creatures that are immune to piercing damage and there are creatures that are immune to non-magical piercing damage.

Werebear:
"Damage Immunities: bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage from non magical attacks that aren't silvered"

Clearly if you can have non-magical bludgeoning, piercing and slashing then you can have magical bludgeoning, piercing and slashing ... which is by definition bludgeoning, piercing and slashing damage coming from magical attacks. A magical attack is anything caused by a spell or something specifically stated as magical.

From the Sage Advice Compendium

"Is the breath weapon of a dragon magical? If you cast antimagic field, don armor of invulnerability, or use another feature of the game that protects against magical or non-magical effects, you might ask yourself, “Will this protect me against a dragon’s breath?”

The breath weapon of a typical dragon isn’t considered magical, so antimagic field won’t help you but armor of invulnerability will. You might be thinking, “Dragons seem pretty magical to me.” And yes, they are extraordinary! Their description even says they’re magical. But our game makes a distinction between two types of magic:

• the background magic that is part of the D&D multiverse’s physics and the physiology of many D&D creatures
• the concentrated magical energy that is contained in a magic item or channeled to create a spell or other focused magical effect.

In D&D, the first type of magic is part of nature. It is no more dispellable than the wind. A monster like a dragon exists because of that magic-enhanced nature. The second type of magic is what the rules are concerned about. When a rule refers to something being magical, it’s referring to that second type. Determining whether a game feature is magical is straightforward. Ask yourself these questions about the feature:

• Is it a magic item?
• Is it a spell? Or does it let you create the effects of a spell that’s mentioned in its description?
• Is it a spell attack?
• Is it fueled by the use of spell slots?
• Does its description say it’s magical?

If your answer to any of those questions is yes, the feature is magical.

Let’s look at a white dragon’s Cold Breath and ask our-selves those questions. First, Cold Breath isn’t a magic item. Second, its description mentions no spell. Third, it’s not a spell attack. Fourth, the word “magical” appears no-where in its description. Our conclusion: Cold Breath is not considered a magical game effect, even though we know that dragons are amazing, supernatural beings."

Damage from a magical dagger is magical. Damage caused by the hex spell is necrotic, damage caused by hunter's mark is magical and of the same type as the weapon that scored the hit (NOTE: NOT damaged the target ... all that is required for hex or hunter's mark to apply damage is that the target is HIT, not that they sustained damage from the initial attack).

[ and yes .. this does lead to situations where a net could be used to do damage AND restrain a target ... because all that the spells require is that an attack and hit be made ]

[Mr Adventurer]

How about poison? Let's steer away from hypothetical attacks:

A poisonous snake on hit deals 1 piercing and a Con save or take 2d4 poison damage. If the target is immune to piercing damage, does it need to make a save?

The giant coral snake from Ghosts of Saltmarsh on hit deals 2d4+3 piercing damage and a Con save or suffer some non-damaging conditions. If the target is immune to piercing damage, does it need to make a save?

[da newt]

I have always ruled:

1) the arrow hit the creature
2) the arrow does damage (1d6 + Dex)
3) the hit trigger's the spell hunter's mark
4) which does magic damage (1d6)
5) the creature's immunity negates the arrow's damage

= creature takes 3 magical damage from the spell

But I can follow the logic for 0 damage total IF the spell said it increased the weapon's damage specifically, but the spell says "you" do extra damage - it doesn't say the weapon does extra damage, and it also doesn't say the spell does the extra damage. It also doesn't say what type of damage is done. It's vague.

"You choose a creature you can see within range and mystically mark it as your quarry. Until the spell ends, you deal an extra 1d6 damage to the target whenever you hit it with a weapon Attack,"

As DM you have to decide how you will rule, and then remember to be consistent.

[Fnissalot]

Instances in the RAW are found where there are discrepancies between game terms, like the “hit” on an Attack Roll you’re describing or deciding if a breath weapon is an “attack”; I believe at one point JC even stated it added confusion in the rules to use common English and game terms together (like the aforementioned “Attack” and [lower-case] “attack”).

The RAW is clear: Hex requires an attack, and a hit; it doesn’t, RAW, require an “Attack Roll” that succeeds. Hitting someone with a shield qualifies.

For instance, if my PC has Hex on their target, and uses their shield in an “attack” (Improvised Weapon rule), and succeeds, they do 1d4+1d6+Str mod in damage.

Likewise, if my PC has Hex on their target, and uses their shield in an “attack” (Shove rules), and succeeds, they do Prone+1d6 necrotic damage.

It’s RAW in that it fulfills the requirements of both being an attack and being a hit.

You can also see this with the old breath weapon and Sanctuary issue (this has been errata’d but it’s a good example of how the confusion in terms works - and the errata actually lends weight to the “attack” argument as it’s the developers noting how the wording [RAW] allowed instances outside of intent [RAI]).

Imagine a Dragonborn Cleric. They cast Sanctuary as a BA, then use their Breath Weapon as their Action on enemy targets.

(Pre-errata) Some DMs will call this an “attack” and Sanctuary will expire. Others won’t and Sanctuary will stay up. It’s all dependent on whether you go by “Attack” or “attack”. Neither view violated RAW, and I’d say consistency in application is what’s important: I’d not appreciate a DM who calls the breath weapon an “attack” for expiring Sanctuary, but then say it wasn’t an “attack” for Hex (because if you damaged the enemies, how did you not “hit” them with the fire, acid, whatever?).

So you would apply hunters mark to the conjure volley spell? It uses a weapon and the conjured volley literally "hits" the target even if the rules call for a dex save? According to your logic that would work?

[RSP]

With a shove there is an attack but no hit.

Except that I can correctly claim that my shield did in fact hit the target on my attack. Is your argument that my character’s shield did not hit the enemy, when it was successfully used to smack the enemy and knock them prone?




Someone claimed that there is no such thing as "magical piercing damage". This makes no sense ... what type of damage does a magical dagger or rapier do? Magical piercing. A non-magical dagger or rapier does non-magical piercing. There are creatures that are immune to piercing damage and there are creatures that are immune to non-magical piercing damage.

Werebear:
"Damage Immunities: bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage from non magical attacks that aren't silvered"

Check out the Damage Types section of the PHB/Basic Rules. You’ll not find “Magical Piercing” there.

As you quoted, the Werebear is not immune to “non-magical piecing.” The resistance is based on the attack’s nature.

Likewise, there’s no “silver piercing” damage type. Again, the wording makes it determined by the source of the attack whether the immunity takes effect, but it is still “piercing” damage.

[Kyutaru]

I would rule the attack does 0 damage.

Hunter's Mark creates a vulnerability state that amplifies weapon attacks specifically against the target. The extra d6 is an EXTRA applied to the weapon's base damage. In this regard, I believe it inherits the weapon's damage and dice roll, simply tacking on an extra d6 to the base damage due to the vulnerability to weapon attacks exhibited by the creature.

In this way, the damage is NOT from the spell and NOT magical. The spell deals no damage at all, it merely makes creatures more susceptible to your weapon attacks, kind of like lowering their resistance to bow attacks. Sadly immunity is not resistance and renders something completely unable to even be affected by bow attacks for whatever reason. Allowing them to suddenly affect it because of a spell that made them extra vulnerable to bow attacks is not logical.

So yeah, I'd go with 0 damage and all of it is piercing. The shot does not do 1d6+3+1d6, it does 2d6+3 nonmagical piercing.

[Fnissalot]

Except that I can correctly claim that my shield did in fact hit the target on my attack. Is your argument that my character’s shield did not hit the enemy, when it was successfully used to smack the enemy and knock them prone?




It literally "hits" but the rules as written never state that it does. It might be the literal effect of it but it is not RAW or RAI. Just because you assume that A leading to B requires C to be able to happen and only A and B is written, it is only A and B that is raw.

[RSP]

So you would apply hunters mark to the conjure volley spell? It uses a weapon and the conjured volley literally "hits" the target even if the rules call for a dex save? According to your logic that would work?

Don’t confuse the RAW with how I would rule: I don’t necessarily follow the RAW in every instance. Personally, I tend to heavily favor the in-game narrative in my rulings.

In this case, I tend to follow that Hex requires the game term “Attack”, but I go with “hit” being an English word used for convenience rather than a game term “Hit”.

So a spell that isn’t an Attack, but rather a Save, would not apply Hex. So the CV spell does “hit” but no Hex d/t requiring a Save rather than an Attack.

Shove is, by RAW, an Attack. If Hex has stated it requires an “attack roll that hits” then Shove would not get the Hex damage benefit.

I suppose, for me personally, the fact the Hex can affect the roll on whether or not the Shove succeeds (by applying Disadvantage on the contested roll), also weighs on my willingness to allow its damage.

I also can imagine how a curse can cause damage like an unfortunate fall leading to a twisted ankle, broken bones or even death; such as a commoner with 5 HPs dying on a roll of 5 or 6 on the Hex damage from the Shove. Usually shoving someone won’t kill them, however, in unfortunate situations, it can. This is how I see the Hex damage on a Shove that hits.

But again, all of this is just my personal ruling and I’m not arguing it’s RAW (except in instances where a specific rule is noted as RAW).

[RSP]

It literally "hits" but the rules as written never state that it does. It might be the literal effect of it but it is not RAW or RAI. Just because you assume that A leading to B requires C to be able to happen and only A and B is written, it is only A and B that is raw.

The RAW requires a hit, which you admit is present. Don’t blame me for what the RAW states.

[Fnissalot]

Don’t confuse the RAW with how I would rule: I don’t necessarily follow the RAW in every instance. Personally, I tend to heavily favor the in-game narrative in my rulings.

In this case, I tend to follow that Hex requires the game term “Attack”, but I go with “hit” being an English word used for convenience rather than a game term if “Hit”.

So a spell that isn’t an Attack, but rather a Save, would not apply Hex. So the CV spell does “hit” but no Hex d/t requiring a Save rather than an Attack.

Shove is, by RAW, an Attack. If Hex has stated it requires an “attack roll that hits” then Shove would not get the Hex damage benefit.

I suppose, for me personally, the fact the Hex can affect the roll on whether or not the Shove succeeds (by applying Disadvantage on the contested roll), also weighs on my willingness to allow its damage.

I also can imagine how a curse can cause damage like an unfortunate fall leading to a twisted ankle, broken bones or even death; such as a commoner with 5 HPs dying on a roll of 5 or 6 on the Hex damage from the Shove. Usually shoving someone won’t kill them, however, in unfortunate situations, it can. This is how I see the Hex damage on a Shove that hits.

But again, all of this is just my personal ruling and I’m not arguing it’s RAW (except in instances where a specific rule is noted as RAW).


Instances in the RAW are found where there are discrepancies between game terms, like the “hit” on an Attack Roll you’re describing or deciding if a breath weapon is an “attack”; I believe at one point JC even stated it added confusion in the rules to use common English and game terms together (like the aforementioned “Attack” and [lower-case] “attack”).

The RAW is clear: Hex requires an attack, and a hit; it doesn’t, RAW, require an “Attack Roll” that succeeds. Hitting someone with a shield qualifies.

For instance, if my PC has Hex on their target, and uses their shield in an “attack” (Improvised Weapon rule), and succeeds, they do 1d4+1d6+Str mod in damage.

Likewise, if my PC has Hex on their target, and uses their shield in an “attack” (Shove rules), and succeeds, they do Prone+1d6 necrotic damage.

It’s RAW in that it fulfills the requirements of both being an attack and being a hit.


But you did say it was RAW?

Also, shooting someone according the english language is clearly an attack. If you cherrypick when to read the rules as written and when to go with "it being an English word", why even bother with the rules at all? You are treating "attack" but not "hit" as a keyword of the rules.

By RAW, a shove is either a special attack or a bonus action depending on if you do a normal shove or the shield master feat shove.
By RAW, a shove attack never describes that it hits.
By RAW, the only thing that can cause a hit, is a successful attack roll.

Anything else here you try to invoke is not RAW.

[RSP]

But you did say it was RAW?

Also, shooting someone according the english language is clearly an attack. If you cherrypick when to read the rules as written and when to go with "it being an English word", why even bother with the rules at all?

RAW Hex requires a hit. Smashing a shield into someone with enough force to knock them over or back 5’ is hitting them.

I’m not “cherry picking” anything.

You’re taking the view that a “hit” is specifically and only the result of a successful Attack Roll that causes damage, yet that is not what the RAW says. The RAW says: “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.”

Shove is an Attack that when it hits does something other than cause damage. It’s the RAW part of “you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise”. Or if you prefer, it’s an Attack under the clause “Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage.” Either way, these clauses take effect after a hit is recorded.

[Keltest]

Dont we already have a Crawford ruling that says anything that deals "extra" damage only triggers on attacks that have a base damage value first?

[Fnissalot]

RAW Hex requires a hit. Smashing a shield into someone with enough force to knock them over or back 5’ is hitting them.

I’m not “cherry picking” anything.

You’re taking the view that a “hit” is specifically and only the result of a successful Attack Roll that causes damage, yet that is not what the RAW says. The RAW says: “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.”

Shove is an Attack that when it hits does something other than cause damage. It’s the RAW part of “you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise”. Note this clause comes after a hit is recorded.
Hit according to the rules "Attack Rolls
When you make an Attack, your Attack roll determines whether the Attack hits or misses. To make an Attack roll, roll a d20 and add the appropriate modifiers. If the total of the roll plus modifiers equals or exceeds the target’s Armor Class (AC), the Attack hits. The AC of a character is determined at Character Creation, whereas the AC of a monster is in its stat block."
Page 194 PHB

Edit:
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2018/04/05/would-a-shove-or-grapple-be-considered-a-hit/ sage advice on just this topic. A hit is a successful attack roll. The shove is not using an attack roll and can therefore not benefit from things that affects hits.

[Fnissalot]

Back to topic, the damage from the hunters mark is magical for the purpose of overcoming immunities according to sage advice so according to the designers it would do 3 damage. https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/12/16/does-hunters-mark-damage-magical/

[RSP]

Hit according to the rules "Attack Rolls
When you make an Attack, your Attack roll determines whether the Attack hits or misses. To make an Attack roll, roll a d20 and add the appropriate modifiers. If the total of the roll plus modifiers equals or exceeds the target’s Armor Class (AC), the Attack hits. The AC of a character is determined at Character Creation, whereas the AC of a monster is in its stat block."
Page 194 PHB

What is your point in posting this? We know a Shove is an Attack that doesn’t use an Attack Roll. I’m not sure why you want to interject Attack Roll rules into a conversation that doesn’t deal with Attack Rolls.

For reference, I quoted the rules for “Resolving the attack”, because attacks requires resolution, even if it doesn’t have an Attack Roll. Those rules explain that after the attack hits, it may still have special effects. The Shove is one such example of a special effect.

[Fnissalot]

What is your point in posting this? We know a Shove is an Attack that doesn’t use an Attack Roll. I’m not sure why you want to interject Attack Roll rules into a conversation that doesn’t deal with Attack Rolls.

For reference, I quoted the rules for “Resolving the attack”, because attacks requires resolution, even if it doesn’t have an Attack Roll. Those rules explain that after the attack hits, it may still have special effects. The Shove is one such example of a special effect.

See my edit, Jeremy Crawford says no, you are wrong.

[RSP]

Hit according to the rules "Attack Rolls
When you make an Attack, your Attack roll determines whether the Attack hits or misses. To make an Attack roll, roll a d20 and add the appropriate modifiers. If the total of the roll plus modifiers equals or exceeds the target’s Armor Class (AC), the Attack hits. The AC of a character is determined at Character Creation, whereas the AC of a monster is in its stat block."
Page 194 PHB

Edit:
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2018/04/05/would-a-shove-or-grapple-be-considered-a-hit/ sage advice on just this topic. A hit is a successful attack roll. The shove is not using an attack roll and can therefore not benefit from things that affects hits.


Back to topic, the damage from the hunters mark is magical for the purpose of overcoming immunities according to sage advice so according to the designers it would do 3 damage. https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/12/16/does-hunters-mark-damage-magical/

Sage Advice and JC rulings are not RAW. They may matter in discussing RAI, but not RAW, so for purposes of questioning my posts, which specify RAW, they are moot.


See my edit, Jeremy Crawford says no, you are wrong.

See my response; no I am not.

[Fnissalot]

Sage Advice and JC rulings are not RAW. They may matter in discussing RAI, but not RAW, so for purposes of questioning my posts, which specify RAW, they are moot

See my response; no I am not.

The thread creator did not ask for RAW, so the designers opinion (probably RAI) on the matter feels like a good answer to their question.

I included the attack roll rules since they define, as written, that a successful attack roll is a hit. The resolving the attack section you quoted is about making attack rolls, and the rules for shoving ignores all 3 steps of it and defines it's own rules for performing a shove. In addition, resolving the attack first states make an attack roll and continues with on a hit, meaning if that attack roll did hit. The rules under attack rolls clarify what that means. So according to RAW shoves don't hit.

[RSP]

The thread creator did not ask for RAW, so the designers opinion (probably RAI) on the matter feels like a good answer to their question.

Then quote the OP if giving them RAI answers; don’t quote my RAW-cited post and pretend to be responding to the OP. That’s rude and disingenuous.

If you don’t want to participate in a debate on the RAW aspects of this thread, cool: no one’s forcing you to respond to my posts that are adding in RAW factors to the OP’s question (which didn’t state RAW or RAI preferences but asked how others resolve it).



I included the attack roll rules since they define, as written, that a successful attack roll is a hit.

They don’t define what all is encompassed in a hit: they state beating an AC on an attack roll results in a hit. At no point do they state smacking someone with your shield isn’t a hit.



The resolving the attack section you quoted is about making attack rolls, and the rules for shoving ignores all 3 steps of it and defines it's own rules for performing a shove. In addition, resolving the attack first states make an attack roll and continues with on a hit, meaning if that attack roll did hit. The rules under attack rolls clarify what that means. So according to RAW shoves don't hit.

Nope. The rules you quoted are about attack rolls, hence the section header “Attack Rolls” in which you found them.

I quoted from the “Making an Attack” section which talks about Attacks in general. And specifically, the “Resolve the Attack” section, in which we see the term “hit”.

As Shove is a “special melee attack” that doesn’t use an Attack Roll, you can specific-beats-general the attack roll from the attack resolution, but otherwise resolve the attack normally.

In the case of Shove, specific-beats-general, the resolution of the Shove Attack would read something like: “You make [a contested skill check of Stength (Athletics) vs Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics)]. On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise [which this attack does]. [Shove Attacks] cause [Prone] in addition to or instead of damage.”

[Reynaert]

This is why Hex does not apply to spells like magic missile because there is no attack and no hit.

The wording of the spell Magic Missile contains the word 'hits', so bad example there.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

If I am not wrong Hunters Mark is a spell

Spells deals magical damage.

It should take the magical damage, in this case the 3.

From what I learned in school 0+3=3

[Chronos]

"Hit" is not synonymous with making contact. If my hammer clangs loudly against my opponent's full plate, have I hit him? No, that's the point of plate armor. If my shield clangs against my opponent's full plate, is that a hit? Again, no. But despite it not being a hit, it might still knock him down.

Or look at baseball. If my bat makes contact with the ball and sends it into foul territory, did I get a hit? No, I did not: I got a foul, which is a completely different thing.

True, the rules nowhere state that a Shield Master shove doesn't count as a hit. By the same token, they also never say that glaring ominously at someone doesn't count as a hit. Neither one lets you add Hunter's Mark damage.

[RSP]

"Hit" is not synonymous with making contact. If my hammer clangs loudly against my opponent's full plate, have I hit him? No, that's the point of plate armor. If my shield clangs against my opponent's full plate, is that a hit? Again, no. But despite it not being a hit, it might still knock him down.

Or look at baseball. If my bat makes contact with the ball and sends it into foul territory, did I get a hit? No, I did not: I got a foul, which is a completely different thing.

True, the rules nowhere state that a Shield Master shove doesn't count as a hit. By the same token, they also never say that glaring ominously at someone doesn't count as a hit. Neither one lets you add Hunter's Mark damage.

Hit absolutely can be synonymous with making contact. Your analogies don’t work as I can say, and be 100% percent correct, in saying “the bat hit the ball”. The fact that baseball has a specific rule that grants batter a baseball term “hit” only if that bat hitting the ball stays in the field of play before contacting the ground, as well as not being caught by another player, while also excepting homeruns as hits, does not mean my saying the bat hit the ball is incorrect.

Likewise, I can say “the hammer hits the plate armor”, but doesn’t affect the wearer. I haven’t spoken incorrectly or misused the word hit in that statement.

You can disregard the RAW if you’d like, but I’ve shown how it states attacks are resolved. Shove is an attack. Shove doesn’t use Attack rolls, hence the specific-beats-general omitting of that part of the attack resolution.

The word hit is appropriately used in the way I’ve used it.

[RSP]

If I am not wrong Hunters Mark is a spell

Spells deals magical damage.

It should take the magical damage, in this case the 3.

From what I learned in school 0+3=3

Being part of a spell effect is not in and of itself a reason to declare the damage output “magical”. Otherwise, any of the hits from either BB or GFB, even at level 1 would be magical, as the attacks are created from a spell.

[RSP]

The wording of the spell Magic Missile contains the word 'hits', so bad example there.

And this is actually a perfect example of what I’m talking about. If non-Attack rolls cannot “hit” then why can the MM? We know MM is not an attack roll (and RAI not an Attack), yet, RAW, it “hits.”

This disproves every argument made against my posts on this thread. Clearly, it shows that hits can occur outside of attack rolls (and RAI, attacks).

[Keltest]

Being part of a spell effect is not in and of itself a reason to declare the damage output “magical”. Otherwise, any of the hits from either BB or GFB, even at level 1 would be magical, as the attacks are created from a spell.

Actually, they explicitly arent. Theyre part of the action used to cast the spell. The attacks themselves are called out as being normal attacks unchanged by the spell, which adds additional effects on top of it.

[RSP]

Actually, they explicitly arent. Theyre part of the action used to cast the spell. The attacks themselves are called out as being normal attacks unchanged by the spell, which adds additional effects on top of it.

They are part of the spell effect. If a PC casts BB, and an opponent Counterspells the BB, does the PC still make the weapon attack?

No, because the spell fails and has no effect.

[Keltest]

They are part of the spell effect. If a PC casts BB, and an opponent Counterspells the BB, does the PC still make the weapon attack?

No, because the spell fails and has no effect.

Yes, they do, because making the weapon attack is part of casting the spell, not the spell's effect. This is explicitly spelled out in the text.

[RSP]

Yes, they do, because making the weapon attack is part of casting the spell, not the spell's effect. This is explicitly spelled out in the text.

No, it’s not. I imagine the majority of DMs would agree that the attack is halted on Counterspell, however, it doesn’t change the point: there is no “magical piercing” damage type.

Fireball doesn’t do “magical fire” damage: it does fire damage.

Take the Ochre Jelly. It is immune to Slashing damage. If you were correct that “magical slashing” was a damage types, then the ochre jelly would not be immune to it, because it doesn’t say it’s immune to “magical slashing” but rather, just slashing.

Compare that to the OP’s situation or many other monsters with immunities that can be overcome when the damage is dealt by a magic weapon. Why the difference in wording if “Magic slashing” is a damage type?

Because it’s not: which is also why it’s not listed on the list of damage types.

[Keltest]

No, it’s not. I imagine the majority of DMs would agree that the attack is halted on Counterspell, however, it doesn’t change the point: there is no “magical piercing” damage type.

Fireball doesn’t do “magical fire” damage: it does fire damage.

Take the Ochre Jelly. It is immune to Slashing damage. If you were correct that “magical slashing” was a damage types, then the ochre jelly would not be immune to it, because it doesn’t say it’s immune to “magical slashing” but rather, just slashing.

Compare that to the OP’s situation or many other monsters with immunities that can be overcome when the damage is dealt by a magic weapon. Why the difference in wording if “Magic slashing” is a damage type?

Because it’s not: which is also why it’s not listed on the list of damage types.

If youre only going to accept the RAW as valid when you think it supports your point, i see no reason to be having this conversation with you.

[Fnissalot]

If youre only going to accept the RAW as valid when you think it supports your point, i see no reason to be having this conversation with you.

Well spoken!

[NaughtyTiger]

The thread creator did not ask for RAW, so the designers opinion (probably RAI) on the matter feels like a good answer to their question.

If you are invoking the OP, then I will answer this.
JC changes his mind on RAW and RAI regularly.
Additionally, he has a habit of not answering questions directly.

So, JC's opinion is equal to the individual posters in this forum.

[Fnissalot]

If you are invoking the OP, then I will answer this.
JC changes his mind on RAW and RAI regularly.
Additionally, he has a habit of not answering questions directly.

So, JC's opinion is equal to the individual posters in this forum.

That said, I don't see how the tweets you referenced (about shoving) indicate whether you (or JC) would rule 0, 3, or 8.

He states that the damage of the hunters mark is considered magical for purpose of overcoming immunities. If it would dependent on the weapon being magical to deal any damage, he would have said that. If it requires that the weapon is magical, it is pointless to say that the spells damage is magical since that won't matter. The only reason for saying it the way he did, would be that the spells damage happens even if the creature is immune to the weapons damage. So based on what he wrote, his intentions on your question would be that it deals 3 damage. The weapons damage is nulled but the spell deals 3.

Edit: started writing this before I say you edited your post. :)

[RSP]

Well spoken!


If youre only going to accept the RAW as valid when you think it supports your point, i see no reason to be having this conversation with you.

I’m not sure what your point is. I state when I’m citing RAW, and other times I state how I would rule something. I’ve done both on this thread.

If we’re arguing the RAW, I don’t care about RAI, because that’s not what we’re discussing.

The RAW on BB/GFB is, if it’s Counterspelled, it has no effect. Allowing the Cast a Spell Action to make a Weapon Attack after the spell is Countered, is an effect of the spell. That very much seems to be against the RAW.

If that’s not what you’re referring to, please explain.

[Keltest]

I’m not sure what your point is. I state when I’m citing RAW, and other times I state how I would rule something. I’ve done both on this thread.

If we’re arguing the RAW, I don’t care about RAI, because that’s not what we’re discussing.

The RAW on BB/GFB is, if it’s Counterspelled, it has no effect. Allowing the Cast a Spell Action to make a Weapon Attack after the spell is Countered, is an effect of the spell. That very much seems to be against the RAW.

If that’s not what you’re referring to, please explain.

Its the specific text of the spells. As part of the action of casting the spell (not the spell effect) you must make a melee weapon attack against the target.


As part of the action used to cast this spell, you must make a melee attack with a weapon against one creature within the spell's range, otherwise the spell fails.

This is not part of the spell effect, but the action of casting the spell, which is completed whether the spell has an effect or not.

[NaughtyTiger]

He states that the damage of the hunters mark is considered magical for purpose of overcoming immunities. If it would dependent on the weapon being magical to deal any damage, he would have said that. If it requires that the weapon is magical, it is pointless to say that the spells damage is magical since that won't matter. The only reason for saying it the way he did, would be that the spells damage happens even if the creature is immune to the weapons damage. So based on what he wrote, his intentions on your question would be that it deals 3 damage. The weapons damage is nulled but the spell deals 3.

Edit: started writing this before I say you edited your post. :)

A couple things...
I edited because I realized you tweeted 4 JC posts, not just the one about "hits"

The JC post you are referencing now, I already quoted, and about half the posters came to the opposite conclusion that you and I did.

[RSP]

Its the specific text of the spells. As part of the action of casting the spell (not the spell effect) you must make a melee weapon attack against the target.



This is not part of the spell effect, but the action of casting the spell, which is completed whether the spell has an effect or not.

You take the Cast a Spell Action. What happens after that depends on the effects of the spell selected. Taking the CaS Action does not, in and of itself, grant attacks: that only occurs when the spell calls for it.

I wouldn’t expect to make a Melee Spell Attack after Vampiric Touch is Countered, or any other spell that grants attacks of some sort.

[Fnissalot]

You take the Cast a Spell Action. What happens after that depends on the effects of the spell selected. Taking the CaS Action does not, in and of itself, grant attacks: that only occurs when the spell calls for it.

I wouldn’t expect to make a Melee Spell Attack after Vampiric Touch is Countered, or any other spell that grants attacks of some sort.

I continue with quoting sage advice. Opposite to what I thought, the attack is countered as well is the intention with the wording. https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/05/22/if-my-green-flame-blade-is-counterspelled-do-i-still-get-to-make-a-normal-melee-attack/

[RSP]

I continue with quoting sage advice. Opposite to what I thought, the attack is countered as well is the intention with the wording. https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/05/22/if-my-green-flame-blade-is-counterspelled-do-i-still-get-to-make-a-normal-melee-attack/

Just to clarify, that “Sage Advice” is not the official SA, and has no bearing on 5e rules. I understand using JC’s tweets as RAI, I just wanted to make sure the difference between that site and the official SA was understood. (Edit: I appreciate you posting the link even though it went against your argument.)

Aside from that, I stand by the original point of this side discussion: Being an effect of a spell does not in and of itself make an attack’s damage magical. If that was the case, spells like Holy Weapon wouldn’t have clauses like “If the weapon isn’t already a magic weapon, it becomes one for the duration.”

[Keltest]

You take the Cast a Spell Action. What happens after that depends on the effects of the spell selected. Taking the CaS Action does not, in and of itself, grant attacks: that only occurs when the spell calls for it.

I wouldn’t expect to make a Melee Spell Attack after Vampiric Touch is Countered, or any other spell that grants attacks of some sort.

Specific trumps general. In this case, the cantrips require you to make the attack as part of the action of casting the spell, not as its effect. You still take the action whether or not the spell is countered. In Vampiric Touch, all of the results are part of the effects of the spell.

[RSP]

Specific trumps general. In this case, the cantrips require you to make the attack as part of the action of casting the spell, not as its effect. You still take the action whether or not the spell is countered. In Vampiric Touch, all of the results are part of the effects of the spell.

The Action to cast the spell is the same either way, and all elements of the casting, including effects, are involved in that action: the Cast a Spell Action.

[Keltest]

The Action to cast the spell is the same either way, and all components of the casting are involved in that action: the Cast a Spell Action.

Counterspell doesnt cancel the action though, it just blocks the effects of the spell. Making a melee attack is not an effect of the spell.

[Fnissalot]

Just to clarify, that “Sage Advice” is not the official SA, and has no bearing on 5e rules. I understand using JC’s tweets as RAI, I just wanted to make sure the difference between that site and the official SA was understood. (Edit: I appreciate you posting the link even though it went against your argument.)

Aside from that, I stand by the original point of this side discussion: Being an effect of a spell does not in and of itself make an attack’s damage magical. If that was the case, spells like Holy Weapon wouldn’t have clauses like “If the weapon isn’t already a magic weapon, it becomes one for the duration.”
Quote from official sage advice compendium:
"Does a grapple or a shove trigger the Tempest cleric’s
Wrath of the Storm or a Battle Master’s Riposte? The
answer to both questions is no. The grappling and shoving
options (PH, 195) don’t result in a hit or a miss."

And
"Does the extra damage from hex only apply if there is an
attack roll? The extra damage in the hex spell requires an
attack that hits."

It does not say that it needs to deal damage, but it does not directly answer the question of immunity.

Edit: official sage advice don't mention anything about counter spelling booming blade.

[stoutstien]

Hunters mark is an anomaly in terms of having no listed damage type so it's really needs updated wording.

[RSP]

Counterspell doesnt cancel the action though, it just blocks the effects of the spell. Making a melee attack is not an effect of the spell.

Correct in that the Action is still used, however that doesn’t change that the attack is part of the spell. I understand you believe the attack to be outside the spell effect, but that’s just not correct. Here’s the wording of the BB:

“As part of the action used to cast this spell, you must make a melee attack with a weapon against one creature within the spell's range, otherwise the spell fails.”

The “action used to cast this spell” is the Cast a Spell Action. All this is saying is as part of casting this spell, a melee Weapon Attack is involved. Just like how a blast of fire is part of the action of casting Fireball. The fact that an effect of a spell is part of the action used to cast a spell, isn’t anything unique: it’s what happens with any instantaneous spell: the effect occurs as part of the action of casting.

Fireball: the flaming ball of fire is part of the action used to cast the spell. The action isn’t complete until you resolve the fireball saves and damage.

Note: non-instantaneous spell effects, like Bless, have effects that occurs outside the Action used to cast the spell. This shows what the alternative is, but both are still effects of the spell.

You can keep repeating yourself for however many posts you’d like but it’s not going to change anything.

[RSP]

Quote from official sage advice compendium:
"Does a grapple or a shove trigger the Tempest cleric’s
Wrath of the Storm or a Battle Master’s Riposte? The
answer to both questions is no. The grappling and shoving
options (PH, 195) don’t result in a hit or a miss."

And
"Does the extra damage from hex only apply if there is an
attack roll? The extra damage in the hex spell requires an
attack that hits."

It does not say that it needs to deal damage, but it does not directly answer the question of immunity.

Edit: official sage advice don't mention anything about counter spelling booming blade.

Again, Official SA is not RAW.

Thanks to Magic Missile, we know a hit is not a game term meaning the result of a successful Attack Roll. Hit is being used as it’s common English meaning, and yes, in that sense, a shield bash shove can hit an enemy.

[NaughtyTiger]

Keltest, Rsp,

Are you debating whether the melee attack (+ base weapon damage) still occurs if Booming Blade is counterspelled?
If so, which of you is saying the melee attack (+ base weapon damage) does occur? (i am wrapped around the axle on this sub plot)

[RSP]

Keltest, Rsp,

Are you debating whether the melee attack (+ base weapon damage) still occurs if Booming Blade is counterspelled?
If so, which of you is saying the melee attack (+ base weapon damage) does occur? (i am wrapped around the axle on this sub plot)

Keltest is stating that the melee attack occurs even on a Counterspell.

Though I’m not sure why that isn’t obvious by the previous posts.

[NaughtyTiger]

Though I’m not sure why that isn’t obvious by the previous posts.

does it matter?

[RSP]

does it matter?

Just curious why it wasn’t clear in the posts; or if something I had posted made it seem I was arguing the opposite position.

[Tanarii]

In this way, the damage is NOT from the spell and NOT magical. The spell deals no damage at all, it merely makes creatures more susceptible to your weapon attacks, kind of like lowering their resistance to bow attacks. Sadly immunity is not resistance and renders something completely unable to even be affected by bow attacks for whatever reason. Allowing them to suddenly affect it because of a spell that made them extra vulnerable to bow attacks is not logical.

So yeah, I'd go with 0 damage and all of it is piercing. The shot does not do 1d6+3+1d6, it does 2d6+3 nonmagical piercing.
I've always assumed it's non-magical unless the attack is magical too. I'd say 0 as well.

But now that I've read this thread, I don't think there's a solid RAW, or based on developer comments linked RAI, reason for me to continue assuming that.

But I still don't think it's a *good* way for the spell to work. I'd rather it just increase the weapon damage and remain the same type and magicalness as the base attack. Same with sneak attack.

[Snails]

Hunters mark is an anomaly in terms of having no listed damage type so it's really needs updated wording.

Yes, the wording of Hunter's Mark is anomalous, so there are "interesting" RAW arguments that could be made there.

However, reading the Damage Types (https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Combat#toc_50) section, I believe it is strongly implied that the DM should assign a damage type from the standard list, if there ever is an ambiguity to resolve.

Specifically:

The Damage Types follow, with examples to help a GM assign a damage type to a new Effect.

Given the context and various other examples, I think it is obvious that assigning the spell the same damage type as the weapon is the best choice here (albeit I recognize that it is not the only logically supportable choice).

However, that falls short of absolutely resolving whether this is extra die of damage is imbued with "magical".

IMO the answer is no, it is not magical, any more than wearing a Girdle of Giant Strength makes a portion of your melee damage magic.
So the result is "2d6+3 (non-magical) piercing = 0 net damage for this creature".

[Fnissalot]

Again, Official SA is not RAW.

Thanks to Magic Missile, we know a hit is not a game term meaning the result of a successful Attack Roll. Hit is being used as it’s common English meaning, and yes, in that sense, a shield bash shove can hit an enemy.

Sorry I got you started again :S.

Why do you care for a spells effect to determine what is a game term? Magic missile is not an attack nor related to how attacks works, but you have one point there, magic missile should probably be rewriten without using the word hit.

If you read the rules chapter on combat, the word hit is only used mean that an attack has successfully beaten the AC of the target, i.e. a successful attack roll. I don't understand how you can just ignore this sentence from the rules about attacking when you determine what a game term is: "When you make an Attack, your Attack roll determines whether the Attack hits or misses." If it was not a game term, spells like hunters mark would specify that "when you deal damage with an attack" or similar instead of "when you hit with an attack" since it is using the rules to clarify the conditions for the effect of the spell taking place. Hunter's mark uses the word as a game term, not as just a common english word free for your interpretation.

If you care about specifics over generals, the whole of step 2 and 3 relates to attack rolls and would then be replaced by the shove's contested skill check. By your definition, the shove with a shield would do a d4+ str mod or with your body 1+ str mod since it is an attack and you argue that it hits and the rules for attacks dealing damage states "On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular Attack has rules that specify otherwise" while the rules for shoving removes the attack roll but does not specify that the shove does not deal damage. I would love to as an attack, shove for 1+1d6+strength and cause prone with hunter's mark and a fist at your table. Edit(nothing states that I use my body to shove, I could shove with a greatsword then and deal 3d6 + strength while using hunters mark and still pushing enemies prone. Twice every turn at level 5)

I won't waste more of my weekend arguing this.

[Kyutaru]

I've always assumed it's non-magical unless the attack is magical too. I'd say 0 as well.

But now that I've read this thread, I don't think there's a solid RAW, or based on developer comments linked RAI, reason for me to continue assuming that.

But I still don't think it's a *good* way for the spell to work. I'd rather it just increase the weapon damage and remain the same type and magicalness as the base attack. Same with sneak attack.

I agree and for me the assumptions don't matter. Because honestly RAW, RAI, it's my table and I'll do it the way makes sense to me, not the way 58% of the popular poll voted or the way the designers wanted. They already messed up lots of other areas that both RAW and RAI are just broken and we've had to do some house ruling to fix their mistakes. Regardless of how the spell actually works with intent or lawyer reading I'll go by the logic I used in my comment to determine how it works to me. Just sharing that logic with others in case they find it more agreeable than the literal/intended interpretation itself.

If you'd rather it work a certain way then make it work that way!

[Fnissalot]

So here's my order:

1 attacker: roll to decide if you hit
2 attacker: add totals of damage
3 target: subtract resistance/immunity where applicable
4 target: take remaining damage

This is the correct order of instructions according to the PHB for resistances and vulnerabilities "Resistance and then vulnerability are applied after all other modifiers to damage." (I just realized that the PHB never actually defines how immunity works. That is a big oversight. So there is no RAW on rules related to immunity. I will assume it happens when resistances happens.)

So with a shortbow and hunters mark:
1 roll to hit
2 roll both the bow's damage (d6s+dex mod) and the spell's damage (d6) (a net would generate no damage here and would not trigger hunter's mark)
3 the bow is not magical, that part of the damage is removed, the spells damage is magical so that is not reduced.
4 it takes damage based on only the hunters mark.

If you would do the following order instead, nothing like hunters mark, paladins smite or the smite spells, hex, flame arrows, or clerics divine strike would deal damage to creatures immune to piercing etc from non-magical weapons unless your weapon is magical.
1 roll to hit
2 check if not immune to weapon damage
3 roll damage
4 apply resistances etc
5 target takes damage

In the rules for injury poisons, they specify that the target must take damage from the coated weapon to be affected. If hunters mark would require the target to take damage, it would be specified as well. There is a big difference between that the weapon must be able to deal damage and that the target has taken damage.

[Yunru]

RAW Hex requires a hit. Smashing a shield into someone with enough force to knock them over or back 5’ is hitting them.

I’m not “cherry picking” anything.

Ummm... Yes, you very much are cherry picking. You're cherry picking the narrative resolution of "they failed an opposed check and now this happened" to include "I made forceful contact with them."

[RSP]

Ummm... Yes, you very much are cherry picking. You're cherry picking the narrative resolution of "they failed an opposed check and now this happened" to include "I made forceful contact with them."

First, I’ve already stated I heavily tend towards the narrative in my personal rulings, so leaning that way on my rulings is no surprise.

For this though, how do you shove someone to the ground (or 5’ back) with a shield without making forceful contact? (Also, it’s probably better to put it in the actors reference: the Shield Master BA Shove-er succeeded on their opposed check.)

Isn’t this also what the RAW tells us should happen? Roll a die (or dice), if the resolution of someone’s actions are in doubt, and then describe that result narratively?

Where did I not go with that argument that makes this a “cherry picking?”

If you’re going to accuse me of such things, please explain your accusation.

[Chronos]

But I can shove someone to the ground without hitting them. Even by the colloquial definition of "hit", all I need to hit is their armor, not them. And we already know that hitting someone's armor doesn't trigger Hunter's Mark.

[ProsecutorGodot]

But I can shove someone to the ground without hitting them. Even by the colloquial definition of "hit", all I need to hit is their armor, not them. And we already know that hitting someone's armor doesn't trigger Hunter's Mark.

Sure, if you target the armor, but if your target is a creature anything you do is against them.

I think you'd have a tough time arguing that you haven't harmed somebody when you hit their clothes and it coincidentally happened to harm them as well.

It's literally "stop touching me" "nuh uh, I'm touching your shirt not you" levels of pedantry.

[Kyutaru]

Sure, if you target the armor, but if your target is a creature anything you do is against them.

I think you'd have a tough time arguing that you haven't harmed somebody when you hit their clothes and it coincidentally happened to harm them as well.

It's literally "stop touching me" "nuh uh, I'm touching your shirt not you" levels of pedantry.

It's also why D&D has both AC and touch AC, to distinguish between attacks that need to actually strike your person versus ones that merely need to strike your clothes.

[RSP]

Sorry I got you started again :S.

Why do you care for a spells effect to determine what is a game term? Magic missile is not an attack nor related to how attacks works, but you have one point there, magic missile should probably be rewriten without using the word hit.

Because “hit” is not a game term, that’s my argument. Apparently that wasn’t clear for some reason. Just assuming I’m wrong in light of evidence put forth (the wording of MM), and asking why I care about that evidence, rather than addressing that evidence, is trying to cop out of the argument. As is assuming the RAW is wrong in interpreting the RAW, which brings along with it further complications.



If you read the rules chapter on combat, the word hit is only used mean that an attack has successfully beaten the AC of the target, i.e. a successful attack roll. I don't understand how you can just ignore this sentence from the rules about attacking when you determine what a game term is: "When you make an Attack, your Attack roll determines whether the Attack hits or misses." If it was not a game term, spells like hunters mark would specify that "when you deal damage with an attack" or similar instead of "when you hit with an attack" since it is using the rules to clarify the conditions for the effect of the spell taking place. Hunter's mark uses the word as a game term, not as just a common english word free for your interpretation.

You’re assuming, for some reason, that the rules cannot use the common English meaning for a word. To hit means: (verb) “to strike”, or “bring one's hand or a tool or weapon into contact with (someone or something) quickly and forcefully”; or “an instance of striking the target aimed at” when used as a noun.

That’s how it’s used in the RAW. It’s not given a special meaning in the context of the rules of 5e. Compare that to the use of the word “Class” or “Background”, which aren’t being used as their common English meaning.

As to your argument on the usage of “when you hit” versus using “when you deal damage” there is a very big game difference between those points. “When you deal damage” comes after “when you hit,” from a game rule perspective. “When you hit” refers to the successful resolution of the determination of whether or not an attack was successful or not; while “when you deal damage” is after you’ve determined the damage applied to the target.

Since the intent is to have HM add +1d6 to the atrack’s damage roll (as opposed to it being a second, independent instance of damage), they worded it so that it applies after a successful Attack, but before damage is resolved, so you know to include the HM damage with the rest of the attacks damage. .

So your argument is wrong as it assumes the timing of the application of the d6 is irrelevant.

It’s also wrong in that they used hit as it’s common English meaning. If they meant it to have a different meaning than it’s common English meaning, they’d have described it as such.

For instance, the RAW states under the Long Jump rules: “At your DM’s option, you must succeed on a DC 10 Strength (Athletics) check to clear a low obstacle (no taller than a quarter of the jump’s distance), such as a hedge or low wall. Otherwise, you hit it.”

If “hit” is a game term referencing a successful Attack, then PCs could use their movement to long jump under an enemy’s legs (say a Huge creature like a fire giant) and if they fail to clear the obstacle (in this case, the enemy’s crotch), they successfully hit it with an attack, and presumably would roll damage.

Fortunately, it’s not a game term, but is used as it’s common English meaning, hence no free attack for PCs using only their movement.



If you care about specifics over generals, the whole of step 2 and 3 relates to attack rolls and would then be replaced by the shove's contested skill check. By your definition, the shove with a shield would do a d4+ str mod or with your body 1+ str mod since it is an attack and you argue that it hits and the rules for attacks dealing damage states "On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular Attack has rules that specify otherwise" while the rules for shoving removes the attack roll but does not specify that the shove does not deal damage.

Incorrect. The rules for Shove tells you what it does instead of damage, which does not go against the rules for resolving an attack; as the rules for resolving an attack state, as you just pointed out, that not all attacks deal damage.

If the rule for resolving an attack stated the attack had to deal damage, then, yes, Shove (and Grapple) would involve a specific-over-general application. But since that’s not what the rule states, it does not: Shove follows the general rule in that sense.



I would love to as an attack, shove for 1+1d6+strength and cause prone with hunter's mark and a fist at your table. Edit(nothing states that I use my body to shove, I could shove with a greatsword then and deal 3d6 + strength while using hunters mark and still pushing enemies prone. Twice every turn at level 5)

You would need to be a BM, and using a specific maneuver, to do so.

Outside of that, please don’t make up lies on how I would create houserules at my table: readers may take that as fact and try to pull of some odd stuff at my table, using your lies as evidence of my houserules. I’d then have to come back and reread your posts to determine if I did indeed state what you’ve said here, slowing down game play for all my players.

Now if you want to argue the RAW letting you do damage on a Shove equal to either an Unarmed Strike or a Weapon’s damage, please posit your case for us all to see. But don’t pretend it’s my words, or a houserule I use: take credit for the argument you’re making.

[RSP]

But I can shove someone to the ground without hitting them. Even by the colloquial definition of "hit", all I need to hit is their armor, not them. And we already know that hitting someone's armor doesn't trigger Hunter's Mark.

As ProsecutorGadot stated, but also, yes, you can shove someone without hitting them. However, in that exact same interpretation, you can shove someone with hitting them.

So the basis of your argument accepts my point.

If a Player stated “I want to non-violently close with my opponent so we make contact, then use that established contact to Shove them in a way that doesn’t create new contact,” okay, maybe they didn’t hit them.

But if a Player wants to use their Shield Master BA feature and says “I bash them to the ground with my shield,” yeah, it’s going to involve hitting the opponent if they succeed.


It's also why D&D has both AC and touch AC, to distinguish between attacks that need to actually strike your person versus ones that merely need to strike your clothes.

5e doesn’t have touch AC, unless I’m missing something.

[Valmark]

First off, no clear definition of "Immunity" exists so that's really homewever you wish to judge it.

Looking at Resistance/Vulnerability, since they directly modify the numbers, I'd rule that Immunity brings the damage to 0. To which you add damage from a spell, which isn't stopped by the immunity, so 3 damage is correct.

Another way to say it, when you hit you deal 3 damage in addition to whatever you're doing, so that's 3 damage from the spell. Unless otherwise specified, negating the damage from your weapon doesn't necessarily stop any rider effect or additional damage

Should point out that immunity is usually related not to damage, but to the weapon being non-magical, and the spell is instead clearly magical. It's magic, so it's magical.

On the subject of the shove+hex, Hex requires an attack to hit, and while attacks are called out as hitting shoves aren't. So... No, it doesn't work RAW.

To those quoting the "resolving an attack" part (I lost track of who said that) immediately after in the same paragraph it says that when in doubt, if you make an attack roll you're making an attack. That erases shoves from the possibilities. Not only that but in point 3 (which is what is being quoted) it calls out attack rolls. So not working RAW either way, and you shouldn't quote half of the rule to make your point when the other half is what disproves you.

If you're telling me wether you hit someone with a shield to shove them in terms of our language, yeah it's true. In the wording of the PHB, no. At least not enough to apply those spells. Feel free to let Hex or other things apply, but they aren't what the book says and will be your own specific rule.

[Fnissalot]

Because “hit” is not a game term, that’s my argument. Apparently that wasn’t clear for some reason. Just assuming I’m wrong in light of evidence put forth (the wording of MM), and asking why I care about that evidence, rather than addressing that evidence, is trying to cop out of the argument. As is assuming the RAW is wrong in interpreting the RAW, which brings along with it further complications.

You’re assuming, for some reason, that the rules cannot use the common English meaning for a word. To hit means: (verb) “to strike”, or “bring one's hand or a tool or weapon into contact with (someone or something) quickly and forcefully”; or “an instance of striking the target aimed at” when used as a noun.

That’s how it’s used in the RAW. It’s not given a special meaning in the context of the rules of 5e. Compare that to the use of the word “Class” or “Background”, which aren’t being used as their common English meaning.

As to your argument on the usage of “when you hit” versus using “when you deal damage” there is a very big game difference between those points. “When you deal damage” comes after “when you hit,” from a game rule perspective. “When you hit” refers to the successful resolution of the determination of whether or not an attack was successful or not; while “when you deal damage” is after you’ve determined the damage applied to the target.

Since the intent is to have HM add +1d6 to the atrack’s damage roll (as opposed to it being a second, independent instance of damage), they worded it so that it applies after a successful Attack, but before damage is resolved, so you know to include the HM damage with the rest of the attacks damage. .

So your argument is wrong as it assumes the timing of the application of the d6 is irrelevant.

It’s also wrong in that they used hit as it’s common English meaning. If they meant it to have a different meaning than it’s common English meaning, they’d have described it as such.

For instance, the RAW states under the Long Jump rules: “At your DM’s option, you must succeed on a DC 10 Strength (Athletics) check to clear a low obstacle (no taller than a quarter of the jump’s distance), such as a hedge or low wall. Otherwise, you hit it.”

If “hit” is a game term referencing a successful Attack, then PCs could use their movement to long jump under an enemy’s legs (say a Huge creature like a fire giant) and if they fail to clear the obstacle (in this case, the enemy’s crotch), they successfully hit it with an attack, and presumably would roll damage.

Fortunately, it’s not a game term, but is used as it’s common English meaning, hence no free attack for PCs using only their movement.

Incorrect. The rules for Shove tells you what it does instead of damage, which does not go against the rules for resolving an attack; as the rules for resolving an attack state, as you just pointed out, that not all attacks deal damage.

If the rule for resolving an attack stated the attack had to deal damage, then, yes, Shove (and Grapple) would involve a specific-over-general application. But since that’s not what the rule states, it does not: Shove follows the general rule in that sense.

You would need to be a BM, and using a specific maneuver, to do so.

Outside of that, please don’t make up lies on how I would create houserules at my table: readers may take that as fact and try to pull of some odd stuff at my table, using your lies as evidence of my houserules. I’d then have to come back and reread your posts to determine if I did indeed state what you’ve said here, slowing down game play for all my players.

Now if you want to argue the RAW letting you do damage on a Shove equal to either an Unarmed Strike or a Weapon’s damage, please posit your case for us all to see. But don’t pretend it’s my words, or a houserule I use: take credit for the argument you’re making.

Fair point, my suggestion ignores the timing of the matter. Your example with jumping would require the jump to be considered an attack since attacks deal damage on hits. But you previously said, when I asked about conjure volley, that it was not an attack (see the following quote), you are currently cherrypicking when to use attack as a game term.


In this case, I tend to follow that Hex requires the game term “Attack”, but I go with “hit” being an English word used for convenience rather than a game term “Hit”.

So a spell that isn’t an Attack, but rather a Save, would not apply Hex. So the CV spell does “hit” but no Hex d/t requiring a Save rather than an Attack.


You also mix between stating your arguments are RAW, what you go with, and what just apparently is. You complain about me not giving you where they define it as a game term, and when I quote the rule where it is defined as a game term in the context of an attack, you choose to ignore it, and cherrypick which rules that you can skip over and not in the quote below, to instead say that:


You’re taking the view that a “hit” is specifically and only the result of a successful Attack Roll that causes damage, yet that is not what the RAW says. The RAW says: “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.”
Two paragraphs down in the rules define that a hit is the effect and game term for a successful attack roll. This is why I find it pointless to waste time discussing it with you since you choose which the rules which fits your narrative and ignores the rules that go against them. But if you want, I can keep spending my time on it?

The rules for an attack dealing damage states "On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular Attack has rules that specify otherwise".

The rules for shoving states "Shoving a Creature
Using the Attack action, you can make a Special melee Attack to shove a creature, either to knock it prone or push it away from you. If you’re able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this Attack replaces one of them.
The target must be no more than one size larger than you and must be within your reach. Instead of Making an Attack roll, you make a Strength (Athletics) check contested by the target’s Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check (the target chooses the ability to use). If you win the contest, you either knock the target prone or push it 5 feet away from you."

Where in this description does it say that a shove does not deal a shield or Weapons damage? It only states that it skips the attack roll. You state that a shove is a hit, and since the rule for dealing damage with an attack, which you have quoted, states that an attack deals damage on a hit, all shoves should deal damage according to what is used to shove them. I am not saying you say it is so, just that this is the logic for following the rules you use. Otherwise you cherrypick which uses of "on a hit" is a game term and which that aren't.

[Tanarii]

But I can shove someone to the ground without hitting them. Even by the colloquial definition of "hit", all I need to hit is their armor, not them. And we already know that hitting someone's armor doesn't trigger Hunter's Mark.
Conversely, you can Hit (mechanical result) someone and do damage to hit points, all without hurting them or even interacting with their armor in any way.


It's also why D&D has both AC and touch AC, to distinguish between attacks that need to actually strike your person versus ones that merely need to strike your clothes.
5e doesn't, and that's important, because you can take damage to hit points without being struck.

[Kyutaru]

5e doesn't, and that's important, because you can take damage to hit points without being struck.Just using old terminology, today we just use dexterity saving throws which amount to the same thing, avoiding getting touched.

[Tanarii]

Just using old terminology, today we just use dexterity saving throws which amount to the same thing, avoiding getting touched.
It still doesn't follow. Because you can fail a Dex save, take full damage, and still not get touched in any way.

Hit points include ablative luck and skill and fatigue. You can lose them without any contact.

[RSP]

Fair point, my suggestion ignores the timing of the matter. Your example with jumping would require the jump to be considered an attack since attacks deal damage on hits. But you previously said, when I asked about conjure volley, that it was not an attack (see the following quote), you are currently cherrypicking when to use attack as a game term.

Again, not cherry picking: my definitions have remained consistent throughout this argument. In fact, you are the one “cherry picking” definitions in this case. {Scrubbed}if it’s something you just legitimately missed, I’ll explain:

I’m arguing “hit” is being used as it’s common English meaning in the RAW: at no point have I argued it has any other use. So when it’s used with MM or the Long Jump rules, there’s no issue compared to the Resolving an Attack rules. Likewise, hit can mean hitting someone with a shield to knock them down. There is no cherry picking as my definition of hit stays consistent: it’s always used as it’s common English meaning.

You are arguing that “hit” is a game term, with the specific meaning of being the result of a successful Attack Roll. In this way, your argument goes, a Shove cannot ever “hit”, because Shove does not have an Attack Roll. However, this argument of your runs into the issue of the use of “hit” with MM and the Long Jump rules: meaning, you are cherry picking when you want “hit” to be a game term, and when it’s not, within the RAW.

The Long Jump rules, and the MM RAW are counters to “hit” being a game term. That is, they offer evidence that hit is just being used as it’s common English meaning. It’s on you, or others supporting your argument, to show why “hit” is used in those instances, or to accept that both those instances are examples of attack rolls that succeed.

So it’s not my example of Long Jump being an Attack: it’s on you to explain why it’s not, because you are arguing that “hit” is a game term that specifically means “an Attack Roll that is successful.” So in your argument, the use of hit in the Long Jump rules means failing your Strength (Athletics) check means you’ve made an Attack Roll successfully.



You also mix between stating your arguments are RAW, what you go with, and what just apparently is. You complain about me not giving you where they define it as a game term, and when I quote the rule where it is defined as a game term in the context of an attack, you choose to ignore it, and cherrypick which rules that you can skip over and not in the quote below, to instead say that:
Two paragraphs down in the rules define that a hit is the effect and game term for a successful attack roll. This is why I find it pointless to waste time discussing it with you since you choose which the rules which fits your narrative and ignores the rules that go against them. But if you want, I can keep spending my time on it?

I’m not arguing what the words in the RAW are, I’m arguing that the RAW doesn’t make “hit” a game term: it’s simply being used as it’s English meaning. Saying that an attack hits or misses isn’t giving special game term meaning to either “hit” or “miss”, it’s just using their everyday meanings. At no point does the RAW say “hit is, and only is, a successful Attack Roll” or anything close. It’s just used as it’s common English meaning.

As pointed out above, it’s use otherwise in the RAW proves it’s usage as it’s common English meaning.

And yes, in this thread I have both given how I rule certain situations, and stated rules as RAW. I’ve said which I’m talking about, and when. If something confused you, ask and I can clarify: don’t accuse me of switching between the two when the question was asked how I’d rule something.



Where in this description does it say that a shove does not deal a shield or Weapons damage? It only states that it skips the attack roll. You state that a shove is a hit, and since the rule for dealing damage with an attack, which you have quoted, states that an attack deals damage on a hit, all shoves should deal damage according to what is used to shove them. I am not saying you say it is so, just that this is the logic for following the rules you use. Otherwise you cherrypick which uses of "on a hit" is a game term and which that aren't.

Attacks don’t exclusively deal damage: you thinking that’s the case is just improper reading of the rules. As we’ve already covered, “you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage.”

Clearly, Shove falls into the “specify otherwise” category of attacks.

Further, damage, per the Damage Roll section isn’t determined by an Attack, but rather “Each weapon, spell, and harmful monster ability specifies the damage it deals.”

So a Shove not only states what it does in lieu of damage (Prone or moved back 5’), but it also lacks a source of damage [weapon, spell or harmful monster ability]. You could argue a shield counts as an improvised weapon, or that shoving with a sword has an associated damage roll, however, that doesn’t get around the first part: that Prone is an attack that “specifies otherwise” and that “cause special effects...instead of damage.”



Should point out that immunity is usually related not to damage, but to the weapon being non-magical, and the spell is instead clearly magical. It's magic, so it's magical.

Immunity and resistance is far more often related to damage types than anything else, such as “Immunity to Lightning” or “Resistance to Piercing.” That some instances have exceptions to those resistance/immunities (such as “Resistance to Slashing from non-magical weapons”), doesn’t mean the resistances aren’t based on the damage types; they are.

And again, “magical” isn’t a damage type, even when it’s used in conjunction with a damage type. That is, there’s no such thing as a “magical piercing” damage type.



On the subject of the shove+hex, Hex requires an attack to hit, and while attacks are called out as hitting shoves aren't. So... No, it doesn't work RAW.

Feel free to peruse the multiple times I’ve countered this argument in this thread if you want to see why this is wrong.



To those quoting the "resolving an attack" part (I lost track of who said that) immediately after in the same paragraph it says that when in doubt, if you make an attack roll you're making an attack. That erases shoves from the possibilities. Not only that but in point 3 (which is what is being quoted) it calls out attack rolls. So not working RAW either way, and you shouldn't quote half of the rule to make your point when the other half is what disproves you.

It wasn’t left off because I was trying to leave it unnoticed; it was left off because it’s unnecessary for the current discussion because Shove is an Attack without question. It doesn’t have an Attack Roll yet it specifically being called an Attack in the RAW is why the “When in doubt...” verbiage is unnecessary: there is no doubt about Shove being an attack because the RAW specifically tells us it’s an attack.

It’s also in the RAW that it doesn’t use an Attack Roll.

If you still have doubts about Shove being an Attack and need that part of the rule to tell you it isn’t an attack, well, I can’t help you then.



If you're telling me wether you hit someone with a shield to shove them in terms of our language, yeah it's true.

Correct.



In the wording of the PHB, no. At least not enough to apply those spells. Feel free to let Hex or other things apply, but they aren't what the book says and will be your own specific rule.

Incorrect. The PHB uses hit in it’s common English meaning. See above for the reasoning behind this.

[D+1]

so i pose to you, did the ranger do:
(2 + 3) + 3 [hm] = 8 magical piercing
0*(2 + 3) + 3 [hm] = 3 magical piercing
0*(2 + 3) + 0 [hm] = 0 magical piercing.Well, btb I don't necessarily care. The book doesn't run the game. I do. I say the answer is 0*(2 + 3) + 3 [hm] = 3. I feel that being struck by the weapon is sufficient to permit the hunters mark to do the damage, even if the damage from the blow of the weapon itself is 0. But really the biggest reason is that it serves no real meaningful goal to get this deep in the weeds on technicalities of rules. If this were the kind of situation that would be occurring with any kind of regularity I'd just write my own rule - that supersedes the book. But I don't think this is the kind of situation that necessarily even needs a written rule. All it needs is a DM to make their own decision and then be able to apply it consistently - IF it should happen again. That is, after all, a major reason why the DM is there - to implement a rule when the written rules don't have a rule, are unclear, produce unwanted results, etc.

[Valmark]

I’m arguing “hit” is being used as it’s common English meaning in the RAW: at no point have I argued it has any other use. So when it’s used with MM or the Long Jump rules, there’s no issue compared to the Resolving an Attack rules. Likewise, hit can mean hitting someone with a shield to knock them down. There is no cherry picking as my definition of hit stays consistent: it’s always used as it’s common English meaning.

You are arguing that “hit” is a game term, with the specific meaning of being the result of a successful Attack Roll. In this way, your argument goes, a Shove cannot ever “hit”, because Shove does not have an Attack Roll. However, this argument of your runs into the issue of the use of “hit” with MM and the Long Jump rules: meaning, you are cherry picking when you want “hit” to be a game term, and when it’s not, within the RAW.

The Long Jump rules, and the MM RAW are counters to “hit” being a game term. That is, they offer evidence that hit is just being used as it’s common English meaning. It’s on you, or others supporting your argument, to show why “hit” is used in those instances, or to accept that both those instances are examples of attack rolls that succeed.

So it’s not my example of Long Jump being an Attack: it’s on you to explain why it’s not, because you are arguing that “hit” is a game term that specifically means “an Attack Roll that is successful.” So in your argument, the use of hit in the Long Jump rules means failing your Strength (Athletics) check means you’ve made an Attack Roll successfully.

I’m not arguing what the words in the RAW are, I’m arguing that the RAW doesn’t make “hit” a game term: it’s simply being used as it’s English meaning. Saying that an attack hits or misses isn’t giving special game term meaning to either “hit” or “miss”, it’s just using their everyday meanings. At no point does the RAW say “hit is, and only is, a successful Attack Roll” or anything close. It’s just used as it’s common English meaning.

As pointed out above, it’s use otherwise in the RAW proves it’s usage as it’s common English meaning.

Attacks don’t exclusively deal damage: you thinking that’s the case is just improper reading of the rules. As we’ve already covered, “you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage.”

Clearly, Shove falls into the “specify otherwise” category of attacks.

Immunity and resistance is far more often related to damage types than anything else, such as “Immunity to Lightning” or “Resistance to Piercing.” That some instances have exceptions to those resistance/immunities (such as “Resistance to Slashing from non-magical weapons”), doesn’t mean the resistances aren’t based on the damage types; they are.

And again, “magical” isn’t a damage type, even when it’s used in conjunction with a damage type. That is, there’s no such thing as a “magical piercing” damage type.

Feel free to peruse the multiple times I’ve countered this argument in this thread if you want to see why this is wrong.

It wasn’t left off because I was trying to leave it unnoticed; it was left off because it’s unnecessary for the current discussion because Shove is an Attack without question. It doesn’t have an Attack Roll yet it specifically being called an Attack in the RAW is why the “When in doubt...” verbiage is unnecessary: there is no doubt about Shove being an attack because the RAW specifically tells us it’s an attack.

It’s also in the RAW that it doesn’t use an Attack Roll.


First, what's MM? Can't find where it was first mentioned in the thread.

And there is no issue on hit because Long Jump doesn't have an attack roll. It's never even called an attack.

And that rule about Resolving an Attack is necessary, because it specifically calls out an attack roll. Shove doesn't fall into the otherwise category, because it isn't considered in that step regardless of the meaning of "hit".

True on the immunity- in this case though, we have specifically the immunity to X damage from a non-magical weapon and Hunter's Mark provides bonus damage from a spell, so not included in the immunity.

Yeah I've seen that argument countered multiple times and I think the counter is incorrect, not the argument... Yeah, can't really go further on this.

...yeah I replied to the rest above. I'll repeat it just in case: Resolving an Attack needs an attack roll, thus Shove doesn't count. There's no ambiguity there.
You can say that it is an attack and that's arguable- you can't quote that because that calls out an attack roll to matter.

Shoving also is called out as substituting attacks- it means it's different, while Hex or Hunter's Mark work on normal attacks.

[Keravath]

Just curious ...

What is the difference between ...

piercing damage from a magical attack (which is the terminology used in the rule book)

and

magical piercing damage

?

I agree that magical piercing damage is not explicitly defined anywhere, however, piercing damage from a magical attack most certainly is defined (it is the opposite of "piercing damage from a non-magical attack").

Personally, I just use "magical piercing damage" as a short form for "piercing damage from a magical attack".

Hunter's mark is a spell, hex is a spell, spike growth is a spell,

Hunter's mark does an "extra d6" ... the damage type is not assigned in the spell but many DMs use the same damage type as the attack that triggered hunter's mark.

Hex does necrotic damage.

Spike growth does piercing damage.

In all of these cases, the damage is a result of the spell, the spell is considered magical. Spike growth does piercing damage from a magical source. All of these do damage from a magical source.

[Valmark]

There is no functional difference, but "magical piercing damage" is improper wording.

[RSP]

First, what's MM? Can't find where it was first mentioned in the thread...

MM=Magic Missile.

What you’ve stated in your post is not consistent with the rules actually state; and, separately, you appear to have misunderstood what my argument is.

For simplicity, a Shove is an Attack. We know based off of the RAW cited here:

“Using the Attack action, you can make a special melee attack to shove a creature, either to knock it prone or push it away from you.”

So we know from that Shove is, in fact, an Attack.

As Shove is an Attack, it follows the rules for “Making an Attack” found in the Combat chapter. The third part of that rule is “resolving an attack.” That rule states:

“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.”

Next points:
1) Specific rules beats general rules in 5e.
2) the specific rule is that Shove (an Attack) uses a skill contest in place of an Attack Roll.
3) the general rule is that “resolving an attack” uses an Attack Roll.
4) the specific rule of using the skill contest beats the general rule of using an Attack Roll for “resolving an attack”, because point 2.
5) the rest of the general rule of “resolving an attack” still applies because we have nothing specific in the Shove rule to override the general rule.

So, once we account for the Specific Beats General case of Shove, the “resolve an attack” rule would look something like:

“Resolve the attack. You make the [contested skill check rolls]. On a [success], you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage.”

In the case of Shove, you don’t roll damage because it is, in fact, a “particular attack” that “has rules that specify otherwise,” which is part of the general rule. Shove causes a “special effect...instead of damage.” This isn’t Specific Beats General anymore: it’s just the RAW of “resolving an attack”.

So, back to Hex and Shove. Hex requires two things to apply the bonus 1d6 necrotic Damage:
1) an Attack.
2) a hit.

We know Shove is an Attack (the RAW tells us so, which is stated above and cited), so that box is checked.

So now we just need to see if a hit occurred. We’ve already agreed on this, here:



If you're telling me wether you hit someone with a shield to shove them in terms of our language, yeah it's true.

This statement is true in the game because hit is used “in terms of our language [English]”.

That’s why the Magic Missile (“MM”) and Long Jump rules are relevant here: because if “hit” was a game term, then its game term meaning would hold throughout the rules of the game and Long Jump would involve an attack when not clearing an obstacle.

Obviously it doesn’t because they’re using hit as it’s common English meaning; that is, if you don’t clear an obstacle while jumping, you hit it.

And, as quoted, we’ve already agreed that it’s common English meaning fits the bill for checking the second box of Hex.

Therefore, Hex applies on Shove, RAW, assuming there is a hit in the Shove Action.

[Fnissalot]

Again, not cherry picking: my definitions have remained consistent throughout this argument. In fact, you are the one “cherry picking” definitions in this case. T{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}but if it’s something you just legitimately missed, I’ll explain:

{Scrubbed} I am aware that you are consistent in your definitions, that was not what I was arguing. I argued that you choose which parts of the rules you read and which you blatantly ignore.


Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related and similar cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias.[1][2] Cherry picking may be committed intentionally or unintentionally. This fallacy is a major problem in public debate.[3]




I’m arguing “hit” is being used as it’s common English meaning in the RAW: at no point have I argued it has any other use. So when it’s used with MM or the Long Jump rules, there’s no issue compared to the Resolving an Attack rules. Likewise, hit can mean hitting someone with a shield to knock them down. There is no cherry picking as my definition of hit stays consistent: it’s always used as it’s common English meaning.

Cherry picking is not about being consistent with what you argue, it is about choosing which sources you use and which you ignore. While your argument stays constant,as you say, you cherry pick which rules you care about in your arguments.



You are arguing that “hit” is a game term, with the specific meaning of being the result of a successful Attack Roll. In this way, your argument goes, a Shove cannot ever “hit”, because Shove does not have an Attack Roll. However, this argument of your runs into the issue of the use of “hit” with MM and the Long Jump rules: meaning, you are cherry picking when you want “hit” to be a game term, and when it’s not, within the RAW.


There is no issue here. Considering hit as a game term:

Magic missile mentions hit but is not an attack so there is no issue with "Resolving the Attack". Since it is not an attack it will not cause on hit effects.
Long jump mentions hit but is not an attack so there is no issue with "Resolving the Attack". Since it is not an attack it will not cause on hit effects.
Shove does not mention that is causes a hit, but is a SPECIAL Attack. WotC even explicitly stated in the Sage Advice Compendium (where they clarify often misunderstood things) that
"When you make a Strength (Athletics) check to grapple
or shove someone, are you making an attack roll?
No.That check is an ability check, so game effects tied to attack
rolls don’t apply to it." and "Does a grapple or a shove trigger the Tempest cleric’s
Wrath of the Storm or a Battle Master’s Riposte? The
answer to both questions is no. The grappling and shoving
options (PH, 195) don’t result in a hit or a miss." which you choose to ignore.
Since it is not causing a hit, it won't cause the on hit effects of attacks.

All of this is logically correct. Nothing in it argues against my point.



The Long Jump rules, and the MM RAW are counters to “hit” being a game term. That is, they offer evidence that hit is just being used as it’s common English meaning. It’s on you, or others supporting your argument, to show why “hit” is used in those instances, or to accept that both those instances are examples of attack rolls that succeed.

So it’s not my example of Long Jump being an Attack: it’s on you to explain why it’s not, because you are arguing that “hit” is a game term that specifically means “an Attack Roll that is successful.” So in your argument, the use of hit in the Long Jump rules means failing your Strength (Athletics) check means you’ve made an Attack Roll successfully.

No, it does not. I say that within an attack, it is the result of a successful Attack Roll. Where do I or the rules say that Long Jump is an attack? Nowhere! The statement that all successful attack rolls are hits, does not imply that all hits are successful attack rolls. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc) Not all things that are described as hitting are described in the context of an attack. Every time hit is used in conjuction with it being a result of an attack, it points towards a successful attack roll.


I’m not arguing what the words in the RAW are, I’m arguing that the RAW doesn’t make “hit” a game term: it’s simply being used as it’s English meaning. Saying that an attack hits or misses isn’t giving special game term meaning to either “hit” or “miss”, it’s just using their everyday meanings. At no point does the RAW say “hit is, and only is, a successful Attack Roll” or anything close. It’s just used as it’s common English meaning.

Which terms does it explain that way? You gave the example of classes and backgrounds earlier, but they don't have RAW stating “a class is, and only is, a successful ...". Here you cherry pick which term must be explicitly defined as something to be considered a game term. You have different requirements for different words, I am sure you could find the words class and background somewhere in the books where they mean something else than that part of a player character, and use that as an argument for them not being game terms, just as you do with hit in magic missile and long jump.



As pointed out above, it’s use otherwise in the RAW proves it’s usage as it’s common English meaning.

No, this is not proof for that. This is not arguing for that "all swans are white" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability) as I am not saying all hits are attacks. I say that the hit of an attack requires an attack roll. If you would prove me wrong, you would need a general rule that says something along the line of "a hit of an attack does not require an attack roll". You are trying to falsify the wrong thing and use it as proof.


And yes, in this thread I have both given how I rule certain situations, and stated rules as RAW. I’ve said which I’m talking about, and when. If something confused you, ask and I can clarify: don’t accuse me of switching between the two when the question was asked how I’d rule something.

Attacks don’t exclusively deal damage: you thinking that’s the case is just improper reading of the rules. As we’ve already covered, “you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage.”

Clearly, Shove falls into the “specify otherwise” category of attacks.

If is it is so clear, what passage in the shove rules, specify that the attack does not deal damage as I already asked you once but which you ignored to answer.


Further, damage, per the Damage Roll section isn’t determined by an Attack, but rather “Each weapon, spell, and harmful monster ability specifies the damage it deals.”

So a Shove not only states what it does in lieu of damage (Prone or moved back 5’), but it also lacks a source of damage [weapon, spell or harmful monster ability]. You could argue a shield counts as an improvised weapon, or that shoving with a sword has an associated damage roll, however, that doesn’t get around the first part: that Prone is an attack that “specifies otherwise” and that “cause special effects...instead of damage.”

So you require a different degree in the burden of proof in what I say compared to what you can say, as you can imply that the effect of a shove is in lieu of damage but I need to have overly explicit writings to prove my points. As you require me to find explicitly written rules, nothing in the rules for shove explicitly state that it does so instead of the attack dealing damage. The exception to an attack it gives is that ignores the attack roll, not that it does not deal the attacks damage. If it would specify otherwise, it would either say, "on a hit, the shove does ..." to overwrite the effect of a shove hitting or "instead of dealing damage, the shove ..." but the shove rules says "If you win the contest, you either knock the target prone or push it 5 feet away from you." which does not specify otherwise since "If you win the contest,..." is not the same as "on a hit,...". And even following your arguments, shoves are according to the rules, language-wise, a pushing contest, not an instantaneous hit or aimed strike against the target if you would go with Cambridge dictionary for the definition of a hit being "to touch something with sudden force".


[...]
Incorrect. The PHB uses hit in it’s common English meaning. See above for the reasoning behind this.

He is not incorrect and your arguments don't hold up for scrutiny. If a hit is not a game term but just used as to mean that the attack has connected in term of the English language, I could argue that even if my attack roll failed, my weapon connected with your armor or shield as it is what gives you your AC so I should still deal damage to you. Since the dealing of damage happens on a hit and a hit of an attack is not the successful result of an attack roll but making something forcefully connect. If you logically read the rules, based on how you use "hit" as a "common english word", this is fully correct. So is that all shoves should deal damage since they are attacks and connects with the enemy. Your definition of a "hit" makes all rules for attacks, dealing damage on attacks, and what constitutes a hit in an attack breaks down.


MM=Magic Missile.

What you’ve stated in your post is not consistent with the rules actually state; and, separately, you appear to have misunderstood what my argument is.

For simplicity, a Shove is an Attack. We know based off of the RAW cited here:

“Using the Attack action, you can make a special melee attack to shove a creature, either to knock it prone or push it away from you.”

So we know from that Shove is, in fact, an Attack.

As Shove is an Attack, it follows the rules for “Making an Attack” found in the Combat chapter. The third part of that rule is “resolving an attack.” That rule states:

“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.”

Next points:
1) Specific rules beats general rules in 5e.
2) the specific rule is that Shove (an Attack) uses a skill contest in place of an Attack Roll.
3) the general rule is that “resolving an attack” uses an Attack Roll.
4) the specific rule of using the skill contest beats the general rule of using an Attack Roll for “resolving an attack”, because point 2.
5) the rest of the general rule of “resolving an attack” still applies because we have nothing specific in the Shove rule to override the general rule.

So, once we account for the Specific Beats General case of Shove, the “resolve an attack” rule would look something like:

“Resolve the attack. You make the [contested skill check rolls]. On a [success], you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage.”

In the case of Shove, you don’t roll damage because it is, in fact, a “particular attack” that “has rules that specify otherwise,” which is part of the general rule. Shove causes a “special effect...instead of damage.” This isn’t Specific Beats General anymore: it’s just the RAW of “resolving an attack”.

So, back to Hex and Shove. Hex requires two things to apply the bonus 1d6 necrotic Damage:
1) an Attack.
2) a hit.

We know Shove is an Attack (the RAW tells us so, which is stated above and cited), so that box is checked.

So now we just need to see if a hit occurred. We’ve already agreed on this, here:


This statement is true in the game because hit is used “in terms of our language [English]”.

That’s why the Magic Missile (“MM”) and Long Jump rules are relevant here: because if “hit” was a game term, then its game term meaning would hold throughout the rules of the game and Long Jump would involve an attack when not clearing an obstacle.

Obviously it doesn’t because they’re using hit as it’s common English meaning; that is, if you don’t clear an obstacle while jumping, you hit it.

And, as quoted, we’ve already agreed that it’s common English meaning fits the bill for checking the second box of Hex.

Therefore, Hex applies on Shove, RAW, assuming there is a hit in the Shove Action.

" If you win the contest,[...]" in the shoving rules is not interchangeable to the attack roll hitting or "On a hit,[...]" and that is not how specifics over general works. It overwrites the whole section on resolving the attack. According to conditional logic (which usually is the way game designers write rules), if you replace the cause, you replace the effect as well. The specific here overwrites both the cause of resolving an attack i.e. "You make the Attack roll." with "Instead of Making an Attack roll, you make a Strength (Athletics) check contested by the target’s Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check (the target chooses the ability to use)." and "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." with "If you win the contest, you either knock the target prone or push it 5 feet away from you.". The attack cannot hit as you never do the attack roll of the attack as it is overwritten as well. If you have A->B and C->D and you do C, you cannot get B, you will always get D.

[Valmark]

I don't think there's any need to argue further when Sage Advice tells you no.

Just in case Fnissalot can you quote the source? For myself I could only find this (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sageadvice.eu/2018/04/05/would-a-shove-or-grapple-be-considered-a-hit/amp/) which is from JC and I'm not sure which one holds more value.

And... There is no incosistency with MM and Long Jump, again. Neither of those require an attack roll, so even when you use "hit" you know you aren't attacking them.

Case in point, Shove which is a Special Attack conviniently lacks the "hit" term and an attack roll.

Attacks have it and like Fnissalot says you can't say "specific beats general" to ignore half of a rule. Unless specified somehow, of course, you override the rule, not the part you need.

[Fnissalot]

I don't think there's any need to argue further when Sage Advice tells you no.

Just in case Fnissalot can you quote the source? For myself I could only find this (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sageadvice.eu/2018/04/05/would-a-shove-or-grapple-be-considered-a-hit/amp/) which is from JC and I'm not sure which one holds more value.

And... There is no incosistency with MM and Long Jump, again. Neither of those require an attack roll, so even when you use "hit" you know you aren't attacking them.

Case in point, Shove which is a Special Attack conviniently lacks the "hit" term and an attack roll.

Attacks have it and like Fnissalot says you can't say "specific beats general" to ignore half of a rule. Unless specified somehow, of course, you override the rule, not the part you need.
The pdf with official rule clarifications are here.
https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/sage-advice

[RSP]

I don't think there's any need to argue further when Sage Advice tells you no.

Then you don’t understand what RAW means: it has nothing to do with SA.

[Valmark]

Then you don’t understand what RAW means: it has nothing to do with SA.

It has to do with RAI and those quotes are consistent with the RAW like we are telling you.

Negating further is houseruling and that is clearly not what we are talking about.

[Christew]

I apologize if I appear to be trolling, that is not my point but you as well appear to be doing so as well so you know. I am aware that you are consistent in your definitions, that was not what I was arguing. I argued that you choose which parts of the rules you read and which you blatantly ignore.

Snip.
A for effort -- this was a well reasoned, sourced, and written argument. Not sure it is going to have much of an impact though.

I'd add that if the word "hit" is being used in the way discussed then there must be a possibility to miss. With shove (or other contested ability checks) there is no possibility to miss. You either succeed or fail, not hit or miss.

[Fnissalot]

Then you don’t understand what RAW means: it has nothing to do with SA.

If a shove would cause a Hit, by RAW the rules would need to explicitly state that it hits since that would then need to be written. It is not even implied. Interpreting the rules to say that it does is not RAW, we don't even have an abbreviation for Rules As Interpreted. Applying your interpretation of the the use of the English language with your apparent lack of ability in reading rules, does not make it RAW either. Both RAW and RAI is that shove's don't cause hits. If they would, they would explicitly say so in their rules which they do not.

In the sage advice compendium (which is official in contrast to the sage advice column), the designers refer to the rules stating that the rules to say that a shove or grapple don't cause hits. So according to the designers of the game, the RAW is that it does not cause a hit, since otherwise they would not refer to the page with that rule. They refer to pages in the PHB when there is RAW to back it up.

What would it take for you to realize or admit to yourself that you are wrong on this ruling instead of continually insist that what you say is the blatantly obviously correct way of interpreting it?

Edit: Cleaned up some of the language.


A for effort -- this was a well reasoned, sourced, and written argument. Not sure it is going to have much of an impact though.

I'd add that if the word "hit" is being used in the way discussed then there must be a possibility to miss. With shove (or other contested ability checks) there is no possibility to miss. You either succeed or fail, not hit or miss.
Thanks, and yes, I agree!

[truemane]

Metamagic Mod: Closed for Review.

EDIT:

Metamagic Mod: Thread re-opened.

[RSP]

I am aware that you are consistent in your definitions, that was not what I was arguing. I argued that you choose which parts of the rules you read and which you blatantly ignore.

Cherry picking is not about being consistent with what you argue, it is about choosing which sources you use and which you ignore. While your argument stays constant,as you say, you cherry pick which rules you care about in your arguments.

I’ve been consistent about the rules I care about in this discussion: the RAW. Someone previously asked about how I’d rule something, and I responded to that question. But my rulings are different than the RAW, and I believe I stated as such.

But you are cherry picking: you’re choosing when you want “hit” to be a game term and when it’s not. You are, in your own words, “choosing which sources you use and which you ignore.”

When you want “hit” to be a game term to back up your argument, it’s a game term.

When you want “hit” to be it’s common English meaning so as not to challenge your argument, viola! the rules are using hit as it’s common English meaning.

Either hit has a special meaning within the game rules of 5e, or it doesn’t. Either it means “a successful Attack Roll” or it means it’s common English meanings.

I argue it’s used with its common English meaning when used in the 5e rules.

You argue it’s not it’s common English meaning, but a special meaning, when used in the 5e rules.

I point out that the special meaning doesn’t make sense in its application within sections of the 5e rules (MM and Long Jump).

You say “oh yeah, well it’s not a game term then.”

That is you cherry picking when you want it to be a game term and when you don’t.



Considering hit as a game term:
Magic missile mentions hit but is not an attack so there is no issue with "Resolving the Attack". Since it is not an attack it will not cause on hit effects.



Long jump mentions hit but is not an attack so there is no issue with "Resolving the Attack". Since it is not an attack it will not cause on hit effects.

If it’s a game term, then it’s a game term. If it means “a successful Attack Roll” then don’t change it’s meaning when it’s convenient for you.



Shove does not mention that is causes a hit, but is a SPECIAL Attack.

Shove is, indeed, a special attack that doesn’t have an Attack Roll. It still follows the rules for “resolving an attack” because it is, as you admit, an attack. It has an instance of Specific Beats General in which it exchanges an Attack Roll for an ability contest.

Nothing in SA matters to this argument. If you want to argue RAI, go ahead and quote it, but I’ve never stated RAI in this argument, and have been clear it’s a RAW discussion. SA is not a reference for RAW, so my explicitly RAW argument doesn’t care about SA.

(In case you don’t know what RAW means, it’s “rules as written.” RAI is “rules as intended”. RAW is strictly going by what is written in the rules. Errata can change it, however, tweets and SA have no impact on it as those do not change what is written in the rules.)



The grappling and shoving
options (PH, 195) don’t result in a hit or a miss."[/I] which you choose to ignore.
Since it is not causing a hit, it won't cause the on hit effects of attacks.


They don’t cause your “game term definition” of a hit (“a successful Attack Roll”), just like MM doesn’t cause your “game term definition.” Odd how sometimes “hit” is defined that way and others times not, depending on what you want it to be.

Shove can cause the common English meaning of the word hit, particularly in the context of a Shove that occurs as part of a shield bashing into someone with enough force to knock them over or push them back 5’.



All of this is logically correct. Nothing in it argues against my point.

If your logic is based around “Fnissalot decides when words are game terms, and when they’re not,” then you are correct and they fit that logic.

If your logic is based on consistent interpretation of the 5e, you are incorrect, and your points do not hold up logically.



No, it does not. I say that within an attack, it is the result of a successful Attack Roll. Where do I or the rules say that Long Jump is an attack? Nowhere!

First, this isn’t evidence of your point, it’s you reiterating your point and relies on an acceptance that your argument (hit as a game term that is sometimes used and sometimes not within the same ruleset) is correct.

I do not accept your argument as true so I will not accept it as evidence.

That said, your logic still has faults:

You admit you’ve decided that “hit” is only a game term in situations you’ve decided to define it that way (only when an Attack Roll is present as I understand your argument). I (or any RAW reader) could just as easily define the applications otherwise, such as “only when an Attack is present”, which would actually make more sense than your definition in that regard, as that is where it appears as a “game term”: under “resolving an attack”.

You’ve arbitrarily decided it’s not in the context of Attacks, but only in “Attack Rolls.” It’s not logical to exempt its use in situations for which it was initially described, except that applying it to attacks Attacks in general would go against your argument, as Shove is an Attack.



The statement that all successful attack rolls are hits, does not imply that all hits are successful attack rolls.

Sure, but this is my argument, not yours. I’m stating hit is used with its common English meaning, which allows for it to be used in ways other than as a successful Attack Roll and is what you’re alluding to here. You’re arguing that it has to be used as “a successful Attack Roll”. As a game term, that is its only meaning, just like “Level”, as a game term, only means how far you’ve advanced in experience as a character or in a specific class; and doesn’t also mean its common definition of “a horizontal plane or line with respect to the distance above or below a given point.”

If you’re now saying that hit has its common English meaning applied with its use in the RAW, then I’m not sure what our disagreement is. If you accept that hit has its common English meaning in the 5e rules, then I am correct and in-play you can have a hit that is not a successful Attack Roll.

Therefore, if I “hit” someone with my shield as part of a Shove, then I’ve fulfilled the requirement for Hex to apply, particularly since Hex’s application is to Attacks and not Attack Rolls (BTW, if Hex stated that it applies to Attack Rolls that hit, I’d agree that Shove wouldn’t apply, but that’s not what Hex states).



No, this is not proof for that. This is not arguing for that "all swans are white" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability) as I am not saying all hits are attacks. I say that the hit of an attack requires an attack roll. If you would prove me wrong, you would need a general rule that says something along the line of "a hit of an attack does not require an attack roll". You are trying to falsify the wrong thing and use it as proof.

So again, it’s a “Fnissalot rule” that you’re using, not a 5e rule. You’ve already admitted that 5e uses the common English meaning of hit (see above), yet now have added a houserule that “the only time an Attack can hit is if there is an Attack Roll”, however, that’s not in the 5e rules.



If is it is so clear, what passage in the shove rules, specify that the attack does not deal damage as I already asked you once but which you ignored to answer.

Shove doesn’t have to state it doesn’t do damage as there is no rule that states “Attacks have to do damage,” but rather, the rule states “...roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage.”

We’ve already covered that Shove falls under this general rule of attacks, as it specifies otherwise.



So you require a different degree in the burden of proof in what I say compared to what you can say, as you can imply that the effect of a shove is in lieu of damage but I need to have overly explicit writings to prove my points.

The burden of proof, for either of us, is in showing how the RAW backs up each of our claim. I’ve shown how hit is used in the RAW. You’ve argued “hit” is a game term, but then, upon seeing evidence that the RAW clearly uses hit as it’s common English meaning, decided to change that stance to “its a game term only when Fnissalot decides its a game term, and otherwise is common English meaning.” This is not a realistic view of RAW as no one else but you could then correctly read the RAW.

However, I can say the general rule of attacks allows for attacks that do something in lieu of damage, because that is exactly what the RAW states. I don’t need further support because it is explicitly written in the RAW, so my burden of proof has been met: I cited how and when it is stated.

If you’re arguing “Hit” has a specific game meaning then you need to account for all instances of that meaning when hit is used in the RAW. That’s the burden of proof of that argument.



As you require me to find explicitly written rules, nothing in the rules for shove explicitly state that it does so instead of the attack dealing damage.

Again, it’s not Specific Beats General in terms of Shove not doing damage: it’s the general rule of resolving an attack. Shove states it does a special effect, so it falls into the general rule of having a special effect and now we need to see if that is in lieu of damage or instead of damage, per “Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage.”

In this case, we know there is no damage roll because the general rules of Damage Rolls tells us “Each weapon, spell, and harmful monster ability specifies the damage it deals.”

Shove is not a weapon, a spell, or a harmful monster ability, so there is no Damage Roll. Shove doesn’t state an amount of damage done (like Lifedrinker stating it does a flat +Cha mod), so there is no damage to add in addition to the attack done in Shove.

If you want to argue that a Shove is an Improvised Weapon Attack, go ahead, but it’s not germane to the argument that “Shove is an Attack that can hit” so I don’t care about it in this regard. Feel free to go off on that tangent or start a new thread on it (maybe I’ll participate) but as it doesn’t have a bearing on my argument here, don’t tell me I have to argue that with you.



The exception to an attack it gives is that ignores the attack roll, not that it does not deal the attacks damage.

The exception is the Attack Roll, using S beats G, yes. The general rule of resolving an attack, as discussed above, is why it doesn’t deal damage.

I’m not sure why you require an explanation of why S beats G in terms of Shove not dealing damage, when the general rule provides the reason.

Shove still follows the general rule of “Making an Attack” under which we find the “resolving an attack” rule being discussed. That is, Shove still involves “1. Choose a target; 2. Determine modifiers; and 3. Resolve the attack.” The only S beats G involvement is in swapping out the Attack Roll with a contested ability check.

If S beats G required removing all other rules, you wouldn’t have a basis for doing anything that requires any S beats G: so we only swap out what’s necessary for each specific S. In the case of Shove, it’s replacing the Attack Roll, as everything else found in the RAW of Shove is covered by the “Making an Attack” rules, as Shove is an Attack.



He is not incorrect and your arguments don't hold up for scrutiny. If a hit is not a game term but just used as to mean that the attack has connected in term of the English language, I could argue that even if my attack roll failed, my weapon connected with your armor or shield as it is what gives you your AC so I should still deal damage to you. Since the dealing of damage happens on a hit and a hit of an attack is not the successful result of an attack roll but making something forcefully connect. If you logically read the rules, based on how you use "hit" as a "common english word", this is fully correct. So is that all shoves should deal damage since they are attacks and connects with the enemy. Your definition of a "hit" makes all rules for attacks, dealing damage on attacks, and what constitutes a hit in an attack breaks down.


I’ve already covered Shoves dealing damage on attacks, so I’ll ignore that here.

As for AC working the way you claim, you could be correct, but only if your DM decides that’s how they want to adjudicate AC.

Outside of our discussion, anytime the DM states something like “you bring your hammer down but the elf blocks it with their shield,” the Player could state “oh, well, then I hit their shield. Should I Roll damage against the shield per the DMG rules on Objects?”

In 5e it’s highly inferred, if not outright stated, that what would be considered “objects” that are on a character’s person, don’t follow the normal rules for Objects. If you’re targeting a character, you will only affect that character; and if targeting an object, that object.

For instance, if you attack a creature with your long bow, and that creature is surrounded by other creatures (even to point of having half or 3/4 cover), you don’t hit any other characters, unless your DM specifically rules that way.

But this is another rule that isn’t relevant to our discussion. I’d suggest starting a new thread if you want to discuss damaging shields and armor.



" If you win the contest,[...]" in the shoving rules is not interchangeable to the attack roll hitting or "On a hit,[...]" and that is not how specifics over general works. It overwrites the whole section on resolving the attack.

No it doesn’t. This is another of “Fnissalot’s arbitrary rulings.”

You’ve now decided that when S beats G is invoked it also nullifies whatever other rulesets you want it to, but that not how the RAW works. For your benefit, here’s the RAW:

“This book contains rules, especially in parts 2 and 3, that govern how the game plays. That said, many racial traits, class features, spells, magic items, monster abilities, and other game elements break the general rules in some way, creating an exception to how the rest of the game works. Remember this: If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins.
Exceptions to the rules are often minor. For instance, many adventurers don’t have proficiency with longbows, but every wood elf does because of a racial trait. That trait creates a minor exception in the game. Other exam- ples of rule-breaking are more conspicuous. For instance, an adventurer can’t normally pass through walls, but some spells make that possible. Magic accounts for most of the major exceptions to the rules.”

So no, it only affects that minor portion of the general rules needed to have the Specific item take hold.

In the example in the RAW, Elves don’t stop following the rules of weapon proficiencies just because they have a specific ability that grants proficiency in longbows. Quite the opposite: all the rules of proficiencies still hold true, other than “elves are proficient in Longbows.”

You’re again just arbitrarily deciding you get to decide what other rules are relevant or not (I believe that was your definition of “cherry picking” provided earlier), and telling the rest of us it’s RAW.

It’s not: the Specific rule doesn’t negate any general rules other than what it is specifically changing.

In the case of Shove, it having a Special Effect (Prone or move 5’), is covered by the general rule of “Making an Attack” so there’s no reason to negate the general rule.



According to conditional logic (which usually is the way game designers write rules), if you replace the cause, you replace the effect as well. The specific here overwrites both the cause of resolving an attack i.e. "You make the Attack roll." with "Instead of Making an Attack roll, you make a Strength (Athletics) check contested by the target’s Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check (the target chooses the ability to use)." and "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." with "If you win the contest, you either knock the target prone or push it 5 feet away from you.". The attack cannot hit as you never do the attack roll of the attack as it is overwritten as well. If you have A->B and C->D and you do C, you cannot get B, you will always get D.

No, that’s not how the 5e rules work. You don’t say “well Elves get proficiency in longbows so now we have to scrap the rules of Proficiency for all elves.” You only change what is specifically needed.

Likewise, if you have a Pact of the Blade Warlock, and they bond with a magic weapon during a Short Rest, a specific effect that they are allowed by a class ability, doesn’t mean you scrap the rules for what a SR does. It’s a specific exception in that a SR in that specific instance provides bonding with that magic weapon in addition to what a SR normally does; not in lieu of what a SR normally does.

You don’t scrap all the rules you want because of a minor change to a specific part of the rules.

You continue to do this, citing it as RAW, but it’s an arbitrary series of Fnissalot houserules you’re actually invoking and telling everyone else that you, and only you, decide how much of the rules get scrapped when an instance of S beats G is invoked.

Apparently your arbitrary rulings will always involve scrapping whatever part of the RAW goes against your argument.


It has to do with RAI and those quotes are consistent with the RAW like we are telling you.

Negating further is houseruling and that is clearly not what we are talking about.

If you want to argue RAI, go ahead, but my argument is based on the RAW. RAI has nothing to do with my argument. You can keep citing SA but that has no consequence on my RAW argument.

[LordCdrMilitant]

A similar problem came up for us recently, so I guess I'll weigh in.


Mathematically and within the definition of extra, you can definitely add "extra" to a value of 0. It's a damage roll with a value of 0, the damage roll wasn't prevented or anything.

I think the real question would be what the damage type of Hunters Mark is. Is it magical untyped damage, is it magical damage of the type dealt by the weapon, or is it just the weapon's damage type. We ended up deciding that since the spell itself doesn't deal the damage, the damage is of the weapon's damage type, and thus would be prevented.

[diplomancer]

A similar problem came up for us recently, so I guess I'll weigh in.


Mathematically and within the definition of extra, you can definitely add "extra" to a value of 0. It's a damage roll with a value of 0, the damage roll wasn't prevented or anything.

I think the real question would be what the damage type of Hunters Mark is. Is it magical untyped damage, is it magical damage of the type dealt by the weapon, or is it just the weapon's damage type. We ended up deciding that since the spell itself doesn't deal the damage, the damage is of the weapon's damage type, and thus would be prevented.

And that is why it's important to highlight that there is no such thing as "magical piercing damage", it's a convenient shorthand, and in most cases it makes no difference, but this is not one of those cases.

In the OP's situation, you have 8 piercing damage. But 5 of that piercing damage comes from a non-magical attack, 3 of that piercing damage comes from a magical source, I.e, the spell. So, the immunity does not apply to the 3 piercing damage from Hunter's Mark.

[LordCdrMilitant]

And that is why it's important to highlight that there is no such thing as "magical piercing damage", it's a convenient shorthand, and in most cases it makes no difference, but this is not one of those cases.

In the OP's situation, you have 8 piercing damage. But 5 of that piercing damage comes from a non-magical attack, 3 of that piercing damage comes from a magical source, I.e, the spell. So, the immunity does not apply to the 3 piercing damage from Hunter's Mark.


You choose a creature you can see within range and mystically mark it as your quarry. Until the spell ends, you deal an extra 1d6 damage to the target whenever you hit it with a weapon attack,

There are two interpretations we were between:
1) When you hit with a weapon attack against the marked target, Hunter's Mark deals the target 1d6 damage of the same type(s) as the weapon.
2} When you hit with a weapon attack against the marked target, the damage of the weapon attack is increased by 1d6.

We decided that it's the second one: Hunter's Mark does not deal the damage, it increases the damage characteristic of the weapon attack in question, and thus the damage properties of the attack would be nonmagical and piercing, resulting in 0 assessed damage.

[Christew]

I’ve been consistent about the rules I care about in this discussion: the RAW.

Snip

If you want to argue RAI, go ahead, but my argument is based on the RAW. RAI has nothing to do with my argument. You can keep citing SA but that has no consequence on my RAW argument.
I'm not entirely sure what your purpose is at this point. You found a semantic gap in RAW that technically allows for the possible interpretation that Shove could provide on hit effects. Kudos.

Moving forward:
- Common sense says that one probably shouldn't interpret Shove that way
- SA says that the devs did not intend for Shove to be interpreted that way
- And you don't seem to be gaining any support in this thread for interpreting Shove that way

Maybe we move on?


There are two interpretations we were between:
1) When you hit with a weapon attack against the marked target, Hunter's Mark deals the target 1d6 damage of the same type(s) as the weapon.
2} When you hit with a weapon attack against the marked target, the damage of the weapon attack is increased by 1d6.

We decided that it's the second one: Hunter's Mark does not deal the damage, it increases the damage characteristic of the weapon attack in question, and thus the damage properties of the attack would be nonmagical and piercing, resulting in 0 assessed damage.
Isn't increasing the damage of a weapon attack functionally the same as dealing the damage if the spell is responsible? Hunter's Mark adds an additional d6 to the damage pool that would not be there without the spell being cast. Regardless of how you interpret the nature of the spell effect, that d6 is coming from a spell and therefore has a magical source.

We're talking about 3 damage here, so rule however you want at your table. For me, viewing it as piercing damage from a non-magical source with added piercing from a magical source makes the most sense by RAW/RAI.

[Valmark]

There are two interpretations we were between:
1) When you hit with a weapon attack against the marked target, Hunter's Mark deals the target 1d6 damage of the same type(s) as the weapon.
2} When you hit with a weapon attack against the marked target, the damage of the weapon attack is increased by 1d6.

We decided that it's the second one: Hunter's Mark does not deal the damage, it increases the damage characteristic of the weapon attack in question, and thus the damage properties of the attack would be nonmagical and piercing, resulting in 0 assessed damage.Isn't that incosistent with the wording? Hunter's Mark says you deal 1d6 extra damage when you hit with a weapon attack, not that your weapon deals additional 1d6 extra damage.

I'd argue that it's still the spell damage, but it feels incorrect in the second option either way.

For example Booming Blade deals extra damage on a hit too, but the source is not the weapon.


Maybe we move on?

It's probably wise seeing how Rsp previously argued that SA[site] differently from SA[Compendium] has no bearing on the RAW, while now they are arguing that the compendium has no bearing.

It's usually not worth it to discuss something with someone that changes opinion when it doesn't support their argument anymore.

[Snails]

Isn't that incosistent with the wording? Hunter's Mark says you deal 1d6 extra damage when you hit with a weapon attack, not that your weapon deals additional 1d6 extra damage.

I'd argue that it's still the spell damage, but it feels incorrect in the second option either way.

For example Booming Blade deals extra damage on a hit too, but the source is not the weapon.

Fundamentally, the wording of Hunter's Mark does not align with other similar seeming spells. So being 100% consistent here is a logical impossibility, regardless of the conclusion you come to.

Booming Blade gives an explicit damage type, so it makes sense to treat it as a simultaneous damage effect that gets resolved in parallel.

Hunter's Mark lacks a damage type. The rules explicitly say that, when faced with an unknown damage type, the DM should pick one off the list. In this context, choosing the same damage type as the weapon is the only logically supportable conclusion.

I would say:
Booming Blade --> 5 slashing + 4 thunder
Hunter's Mark --> (5 + 3) slashing

Now, that does not definitively answer the full question, because someone might be tempted to say, frex:
Hunter's Mark --> 5 slashing +3 (magical) slashing (instead

My personal opinion is this last one is the kind of 3eish thing that the designers worked hard to scrub out of 5e. But this suggestion is not provably wrong by the RAW. Nor is it provably correct. Fundamentally, that is a weakness with the wording of Hunter's Mark.

[Valmark]

Fundamentally, the wording of Hunter's Mark does not align with other similar seeming spells. So being 100% consistent here is a logical impossibility, regardless of the conclusion you come to.

Booming Blade gives an explicit damage type, so it makes sense to treat it as a simultaneous damage effect that gets resolved in parallel.

Hunter's Mark lacks a damage type. The rules explicitly say that, when faced with an unknown damage type, the DM should pick one off the list. In this context, choosing the same damage type as the weapon is the only logically supportable conclusion.

I would say:
Booming Blade --> 5 slashing + 4 thunder
Hunter's Mark --> (5 + 3) slashing

Now, that does not definitively answer the full question, because someone might be tempted to say, frex:
Hunter's Mark --> 5 slashing +3 (magical) slashing (instead

My personal opinion is this last one is the kind of 3eish thing that the designers worked hard to scrub out of 5e. But this suggestion is not provably wrong by the RAW. Nor is it provably correct. Fundamentally, that is a weakness with the wording of Hunter's Mark.

I wasn't arguing the damage type though. I was arguing that, using as possibilities wether Hunter's Mark deals an extra 1d6 damage of the same type as the weapon (case 1) or wether Hunter's Mark makes the weapon deal additional damage (case 2), the latter seems incosistent with the wording and quoted BB for something similar.

Note: I mean past 5+ level, BB doesn't deal extra damage on the attack before that.

[ProsecutorGodot]

It's probably wise seeing how Rsp previously argued that SA[site] differently from SA[Compendium] has no bearing on the RAW, while now they are arguing that the compendium has no bearing.

It's usually not worth it to discuss something with someone that changes opinion when it doesn't support their argument anymore.

Unless I'm mistaken (at work, not a lot of time to go back over the thread) RSP has said neither are RAW. I believe it was also pointed out that tweets are not official, which the site run by Zoltar compiles.

SA tells us RAI, not RAW. It even tells you this in the compendium.

[Valmark]

Just to clarify, that “Sage Advice” is not the official SA, and has no bearing on 5e rules. I understand using JC’s tweets as RAI, I just wanted to make sure the difference between that site and the official SA was understood. (Edit: I appreciate you posting the link even though it went against your argument.)




Unless I'm mistaken (at work, not a lot of time to go back over the thread) RSP has said neither are RAW. I believe it was also pointed out that tweets are not official, which the site run by Zoltar compiles.

SA tells us RAI, not RAW. It even tells you this in the compendium.
I switched the quotes by error, look at the first one. When confronted with SA [site] as proof of RAW, they made a difference with the official SA. Unless there is a third Sage Advice I'm unaware of, they implied there that they believe the Compendium's RAW. They now are saying something else.

[SaintRidley]

If I hadn't mentioned the monk's argument of Net + Hunter's Mark, would that change your answer?



No, because Hunter's Mark doesn't say anything about the damage being magical, just that it's added to a successful weapon attack. To me, it seems clear that Hunter's Mark just enhances the damage of the weapon by 1d6 of the same type as the weapon normally offers as base damage. So if the creature is immune to non-magical weapon attacks it's an extra 1d6 that becomes 0. I would also rule that a hypothetical Hunter's Mark that added 1d6 cold damage would do 0 + 1d6 cold to such a creature, since cold is a defined elemental damage type and not a weapon damage type, which is what immunity to non-magical weapons protects against.

[RSP]

I switched the quotes by error, look at the first one. When confronted with SA [site] as proof of RAW, they made a difference with the official SA. Unless there is a third Sage Advice I'm unaware of, they implied there that they believe the Compendium's RAW. They now are saying something else.

No. In what you were quoting, I was explaining to you that what you quoted wasn’t the official Sage Advice. However, even the official SA isn’t RAW. As I previously explained here:

“(In case you don’t know what RAW means, it’s “rules as written.” RAI is “rules as intended”. RAW is strictly going by what is written in the rules. Errata can change it, however, tweets and SA have no impact on it as those do not change what is written in the rules.)”

It seems to me you’re not horribly concerned with what I’m actually stating in these posts, though, and prefer to just continually state how I’m changing my position, which even Fnissalot conceded had remained consistent, so I’m not sure what you’re going for at this point.

[Valmark]

No. In what you were quoting, I was explaining to you that what you quoted wasn’t the official Sage Advice. However, even the official SA isn’t RAW. As I previously explained here:

“(In case you don’t know what RAW means, it’s “rules as written.” RAI is “rules as intended”. RAW is strictly going by what is written in the rules. Errata can change it, however, tweets and SA have no impact on it as those do not change what is written in the rules.)”

It seems to me you’re not horribly concerned with what I’m actually stating in these posts, though, and prefer to just continually state how I’m changing my position, which even Fnissalot conceded had remained consistent, so I’m not sure what you’re going for at this point.

You weren't explaining that to me but I assume that's just an oversight. Doesn't really matter anyway.

Thing is, I am concerned with what you are stating- that's exactly what I'm saying. You stated that the site isn't the official SA and doesn't have bearing on the rules. This means the official SA has bearing or there would be no point to include that. Or you would have said that both have no bearing.

Your position on the main argument (Hex applies to Shoves) is consistent- homewever, your point made back there where you were talking about another argument (wether the attack included in BB/GFB is countered with Counterspell I think?) is conflicting with the one you made most recently.

If the first point you made isn't true the site can be taken RAW, if the second one isn't true the Compendium can be taken RAW while saying that both are correct just makes no sense.

Take your pick, I'm out of this particular subject anyway.
(Also I don't recall ever saying you were changing your position before, but if I did... Well, turns out it's true).

[ProsecutorGodot]

If the first point you made isn't true the site can be taken RAW, if the second one isn't true the Compendium can be taken RAW while saying that both are correct just makes no sense.

Take your pick, I'm out of this particular subject anyway.
(Also I don't recall ever saying you were changing your position before, but if I did... Well, turns out it's true).

Uh... No.

Neither is RAW. That's the position taken, and it's the truth.

RAW is, by it's definition, Rules as Written in the rule book. If it's not the exact words from the book and the g conclusions you draw from them, it's not RAW.

That isn't to say that SAC can't have reached the same conclusion, but citing that conclusion as a source of definitive RAW is incorrect.

[RSP]

You weren't explaining that to me but I assume that's just an oversight. Doesn't really matter anyway.

Thing is, I am concerned with what you are stating- that's exactly what I'm saying. You stated that the site isn't the official SA and doesn't have bearing on the rules. This means the official SA has bearing or there would be no point to include that. Or you would have said that both have no bearing.

Your position on the main argument (Hex applies to Shoves) is consistent- homewever, your point made back there where you were talking about another argument (wether the attack included in BB/GFB is countered with Counterspell I think?) is conflicting with the one you made most recently.

If the first point you made isn't true the site can be taken RAW, if the second one isn't true the Compendium can be taken RAW while saying that both are correct just makes no sense.

Take your pick, I'm out of this particular subject anyway.
(Also I don't recall ever saying you were changing your position before, but if I did... Well, turns out it's true).

I’m not sure what you’re referring to, but please stop accusing me of various things that aren’t true.

To further explain: there is a website someone runs called Sage Advice, that you quoted my response from earlier. That site is not associated with WotC, it’s just a collection of tweets by people associated with DND. There is nothing official about this Sage Advice.

There is an official supplement put out by WotC, the people who made 5e, that is also called Sage Advice. That supplement is considered official in terms of how the developers intended the game to be played. That is why I referenced it as “official”, because WotC says it’s official.

However, neither are RAW, and, more to the point, I’ve never claimed either to be RAW.

[Fnissalot]

Uh... No.

Neither is RAW. That's the position taken, and it's the truth.

RAW is, by it's definition, Rules as Written in the rule book. If it's not the exact words from the book and the g conclusions you draw from them, it's not RAW.

That isn't to say that SAC can't have reached the same conclusion, but citing that conclusion as a source of definitive RAW is incorrect.


I switched the quotes by error, look at the first one. When confronted with SA [site] as proof of RAW, they made a difference with the official SA. Unless there is a third Sage Advice I'm unaware of, they implied there that they believe the Compendium's RAW. They now are saying something else.

I implied the compendium is official, not RAW, but that they appear to be referring to rules that explains misconceptions when they can and those rules are RAW since they are in the books. In the compendium, the question on if grapples and shoves triggers wrath of storms or ripostes is answered with a reference to the shoving and grappling rules stating that they don't results in neither hits nor misses. I understand that as the designers saying that the RAW say that these actions don't causes hits or misses.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I implied the compendium is official, not RAW, but that they appear to be referring to rules that explains misconceptions when they can and those rules are RAW since they are in the books. In the compendium, the question on if grapples and shoves triggers wrath of storms or ripostes is answered with a reference to the shoving and grappling rules stating that they don't results in neither hits nor misses. I understand that as the designers saying that the RAW say that these actions don't causes hits or misses.

Like I said, SAC does often cite RAW (it usually mentions a page or directly quotes relevant text) but that doesn't mean it always does. Not every entry in it is guaranteed to be an answer in line with RAW.

The SAC does two things in defining RAW and RAI: It tells us that RAW is defined only by the words in print within relevant context (this by itself disqualifies SAC from being considered RAW on its own) and the RAI entry states that there can be several interpretations of RAW that might no directly align with the intent of the ability.

Clearly the intent is that grappling or shoving doesn't result in a "hit" but the only part that is explicitly replaced in the "Making an Attack" steps is the attack roll. It then says "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"

Additional context we need is the definition of Attack Roll: "When you make an attack, your attack roll determines whether the attack hits or misses."

So if we choose to Grapple someone, knowing that by RAW the only thing that is replaced in this action is the attack roll, we can follow it like this: "When you make a shoving attack, your Strength (Athletics) check determines whether the attack hits or misses"

[Fnissalot]

Like I said, SAC does often cite RAW (it usually mentions a page or directly quotes relevant text) but that doesn't mean it always does. Not every entry in it is guaranteed to be an answer in line with RAW.

The SAC does two things in defining RAW and RAI: It tells us that RAW is defined only by the words in print within relevant context (this by itself disqualifies SAC from being considered RAW on its own) and the RAI entry states that there can be several interpretations of RAW that might no directly align with the intent of the ability.

Clearly the intent is that grappling or shoving doesn't result in a "hit" but the only part that is explicitly replaced in the "Making an Attack" steps is the attack roll. It then says "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"

Additional context we need is the definition of Attack Roll: "When you make an attack, your attack roll determines whether the attack hits or misses."

So if we choose to Grapple someone, knowing that by RAW the only thing that is replaced in this action is the attack roll, we can follow it like this: "When you make a shoving attack, your Strength (Athletics) check determines whether the attack hits or misses"
Yes, we can interpret it like that, but that is not raw and that does not reflect how you would interject the definition of a hit "If the total of the roll plus modifiers equals or exceeds the target's Armor Class (AC), the attack hits." into this since the attack roll is removed, the shove contest don't compare itself towards the AC, nor gives a definition for when a shove hits.

Techinically, the rules state that you "Instead of making an attack roll, you make a Strength (Athletics) check" and not that the Strength (Athletics) check replaces words "the attack roll" in the rules of an attack even if it can be interpreted that way. It is not a question of filling in the blanks after removing the words in the text, you do a contest instead of making an attack roll and each of them have their effects written out. A attack roll results in a hit or a miss. If I don't do an attack roll, I therefore cannot say if I hit or miss. The shove contest results in either a successful push prone or X feet or nothing happening. The hit or miss is part of the attack roll in the same way the pushing away or knocking prone is part of the shove. If I make juice of a fruit, I get apple juice from an apple. I would not still get apple juice if I removed the apple and made juice of an orange instead. Causes and effects are intertwined, so if I change the cause, I change the effect. If the Specifics over General would be the argument here, the shove would have to state that it hits since the general is that attack rolls causes hits and we haven't done an attack roll.

In addition, since the rules state "If there’s ever any question whether something you’re doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you’re making an attack roll, you’re making an attack." and that you are no longer making an attack roll, you don't follow the rules for making an attack when shoving. So therefore by RAW, Shove is a special attack that is made by a contest and not by making an attack (nor by making an attack roll) and therefor does not use the rules for making an attack. The rules for grapple on the other hand is written differently "Using at least one free hand, you try to seize the target by making a grapple check instead of an attack roll" which could be interpreted either way to due how the combat chapter is written. You are removing the "attack roll", not the "making the attack roll."

[RSP]

Yes, we can interpret it like that, but that is not raw...

If the rules as written can be interpreted that way, it is, indeed, RAW.



...and that does not reflect how you would interject the definition of a hit "If the total of the roll plus modifiers equals or exceeds the target's Armor Class (AC), the attack hits."

Again, this isn’t a definition of a hit, but, rather, using the word hit, and it’s common English meaning, to describe the effect of a successful Attack Roll. You don’t need any special 5e game knowledge to decipher what the word hit means in this context.



Techinically, the rules state that you "Instead of making an attack roll, you make a Strength (Athletics) check" and not that the Strength (Athletics) check replaces words "the attack roll" in the rules of an attack even if it can be interpreted that way.

Instead of the attack roll, you make a check; all other parts of the “Resolve the Attack” rules hold. And again, “can be interpreted that way” equals RAW.



Causes and effects are intertwined, so if I change the cause, I change the effect. If the Specifics over General would be the argument here, the shove would have to state that it hits since the general is that attack rolls causes hits and we haven't done an attack roll.

What you’re suggesting here, doesn’t hold up. If “I attack with my shield” or “I shove with my shield”, either statement can result in the definition of a hit. So changing the cause (Attack vs Shove) did not, in this way, change the effect. Just like if I’m a Fighter, and I use a warhammer to Attack instead of a longsword, it doesn’t change whether I did damage or not.

In your example of apples vs oranges, you still have the effect of making fruit juice.

You admit that the RAW can mean what I’m saying, yet telling me I’m wrong (and Pros G, now) because you’ve decided that’s not what you want the RAW to mean.

Essentially you’re saying, “yeah, that’s what the words in the rules say, but not what I [Fniss] think the writers intended to say.” Basically, you’re trying to arguing RAW with RAI.



In addition, since the rules state "If there’s ever any question whether something you’re doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you’re making an attack roll, you’re making an attack." and that you are no longer making an attack roll, you don't follow the rules for making an attack when shoving. So therefore by RAW, Shove is a special attack that is made by a contest and not by making an attack (nor by making an attack roll) and therefor does not use the rules for making an attack.


This is just flat out wrong. The rules explicitly state that Shove is an Attack. I see no wiggle room in this: “Using the Attack action, you can make a special melee attack to shove a creature, either to knock it prone or push it away from you. If you’re able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them.”

What, in reading that, makes you think Shove is not an Attack? The “if there’s any question” rule, requires there be a question to start, and the rules for Shove do not leave room for a question, as you yourself state: “Shove is a special attack”, which means Shove is an Attack. You admit there’s no question, then add in the rules for if there’s a question.

Making the case of “I know, without a doubt, that Shove is an Attack, but I’m going to question it’s an Attack in order to invoke a different rule” isn’t a legitimate argument.

[Christew]

What you’re suggesting here, doesn’t hold up. If “I attack with my shield” or “I shove with my shield”, either statement can result in the definition of a hit. So changing the cause (Attack vs Shove) did not, in this way, change the effect. Just like if I’m a Fighter, and I use a warhammer to Attack instead of a longsword, it doesn’t change whether I did damage or not.

In your example of apples vs oranges, you still have the effect of making fruit juice.
You are engaging in circular logic here. One usually tries to avoid using a base argument as defense of said argument.

Also this is a poor analogy.
"I attack with my shield" - okay, roll an attack with an improvised weapon, if you hit roll damage
"I shove with my shield" - okay, roll a contested ability check, if you win decide push or prone
"I attack with my longsword" - okay, roll an attack, if you hit roll damage
"I attack with my warhammer" - okay, roll an attack, if you hit roll damage
One of these things is not like the others and presenting them as though they are equivalent is misleading at best.

This type of RAW discussion is usually pointless. You seem to be resting your notion of victory on the fact that RAW can be interpreted in such a way. Unfortunately, it doesn't follow that RAW can only be interpreted in such a way, nor that it should be interpreted in such a way.

[Tanarii]

p
RAW is, by it's definition, Rules as Written in the rule book. If it's not the exact words from the book and the g conclusions you draw from them, it's not RAW.
Point of order, RAW has nothing to do with conclusions drawn.

It it, by definition, Rules as Written in the book. That's it.

If you're (generic you) doing anything other than quoting text from the rule book, it's not RAW. It's just a posters personal opinion and interpretation.

------------------

Personal opinion: Another posters personal interpretation of the RAW certainly holds less weight with me than the designers official explanations in the Sage Advice Compendium. Even when I disagree with the SAC, I give it some extra thought.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Point of order, RAW has nothing to do with conclusions drawn.

It it, by definition, Rules as Written in the book. That's it.

If you're (generic you) doing anything other than quoting text from the rule book, it's not RAW. It's just a posters personal opinion and interpretation.

------------------

Personal opinion: Another posters personal interpretation of the RAW certainly holds less weight with me than the designers official explanations in the Sage Advice Compendium. Even when I disagree with the SAC, I give it some extra thought.

The conclusions drawn from what the text says by itself is "the rule". "The RAW interpretation of a rule" is the conclusion you reach by reading those rules with only the written context in mind.

This is the definition of RAW in the Sage Advice Compendium. I don't even understand what you mean by it has nothing to do with the conclusion you reach by reading the rules, you need to reach a conclusion to make a ruling regardless of whether you're ruling RAF, RAI or RAW.

RAF - The conclusion you reach when you want to rule in the most fun way
RAI - The conclusion you reach with the context of the designers intent
RAW - The conclusion you reach with the context of only the written rules

Perhaps it would be better if instead of saying "Conclusion" I had said "Ruling".

[Christew]

The conclusions drawn from what the text says by itself is "the rule". "The RAW interpretation of a rule" is the conclusion you reach by reading those rules with only the written context in mind.

This is the definition of RAW in the Sage Advice Compendium. I don't even understand what you mean by it has nothing to do with the conclusion you reach by reading the rules, you need to reach a conclusion to make a ruling regardless of whether you're ruling RAF, RAI or RAW.

RAF - The conclusion you reach when you want to rule in the most fun way
RAI - The conclusion you reach with the context of the designers intent
RAW - The conclusion you reach with the context of only the written rules

Perhaps it would be better if instead of saying "Conclusion" I had said "Ruling".
For clarity, the actual wording of the SAC is: "RAW. “Rules as written”—that’s what RAW stands for. When I dwell on the RAW interpretation of a rule, I’m studying what the text says in context, without regard to the designers’ intent. The text is forced to stand on its own. Whenever I consider a rule, I start with this perspective; it’s important for me to see what you see, not what I wished we’d published or thought we’d published."

I believe Tanarii is alluding to the fact that "RAW interpretation" is merely a perspective on the rules. The ambiguities of language and context make it so that it is extremely rare that a written rule will have one and only one possible contextual interpretation. This means that even if you are approaching a given rule from the RAW perspective, you may have a different interpretation of the wording and context than another might. Therefore the actual wording of the rules is the only objective truth, any interpretation (even a RAW focused one) of those words introduces subjectivity.

[ProsecutorGodot]

For clarity, the actual wording of the SAC is: "RAW. “Rules as written”—that’s what RAW stands for. When I dwell on the RAW interpretation of a rule, I’m studying what the text says in context, without regard to the designers’ intent. The text is forced to stand on its own. Whenever I consider a rule, I start with this perspective; it’s important for me to see what you see, not what I wished we’d published or thought we’d published."

I believe Tanarii is alluding to the fact that "RAW interpretation" is merely a perspective on the rules. The ambiguities of language and context make it so that it is extremely rare that a written rule will have one and only one possible contextual interpretation. This means that even if you are approaching a given rule from the RAW perspective, you may have a different interpretation of the wording and context than another might. Therefore the actual wording of the rules is the only objective truth, any interpretation (even a RAW focused one) of those words introduces subjectivity.

Which is why I believe it was said earlier, not just by me, that there isn't always just one RAW answer. There are rather infamous examples in 5E of the RAW being ambiguous enough to allow several accurate rulings. For my take on this, despite being able to find a way to read the rules to allow shoves to count as a hit, the most simple "RAW" conclusion is that specifically in the Shove rules it doesn't say you "hit" it says you "succeed" so it would not count as a hit for the purposes of other effects.

And again, if we say that RAW has nothing to do the ruling/conclusion we reach after then the words are useless, pointless and don't help at all. The interpretation of RAW is what gives us a RAW ruling. You can't really disconnect the two even in the most basic and straightforward rules.

For example:
QHow many hit dice does a level 1 character have?
AA level 1 character has 1 hit die.
We read the text:

At 1st level, your character has 1 Hit Die, and the die type is determined by your class.
And rule based on what that means. This is RAW. Even if the words explain themselves I still have to draw a conclusion on what it means within context.

[Fnissalot]

If the rules as written can be interpreted that way, it is, indeed, RAW.

*Snip

What you’re suggesting here, doesn’t hold up. If “I attack with my shield” or “I shove with my shield”, either statement can result in the definition of a hit. So changing the cause (Attack vs Shove) did not, in this way, change the effect. Just like if I’m a Fighter, and I use a warhammer to Attack instead of a longsword, it doesn’t change whether I did damage or not.

In your example of apples vs oranges, you still have the effect of making fruit juice.

*snip

This is just flat out wrong. The rules explicitly state that Shove is an Attack. I see no wiggle room in this: “Using the Attack action, you can make a special melee attack to shove a creature, either to knock it prone or push it away from you. If you’re able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them.”

*Snip



RAW is not just based on how you interpret them, it is based on how they are written. What is written is objective, while the interpretation will be subjective as soon as we add something more than what is actually written. That has nothing to do with RAI. If RAW would require these subjective interpretations, we would not have the sticky thread for RAW rulings as each rule would then be up to debate since they would need to be subjectively interpreted. I could interpret the rules to say many things as I start to add what I know of the world, but that does not make those interpretations RAW. I could argue that you need higher strength than 10 to not have disadvantage on using a greatsword as I know, from real world knowledge, that an average human would not be able to effectively swing it and the rules does not say that isn't the case. If you infer your own knowledge into the rulings, it is no longer RAW as you are not limited to the context of what has been written.

I guess you haven't made juice then since the process of making juice of apples and oranges are different and requires different tools, but fair, both juices are fruit juices. A won contest and a hit on an attack roll are both successful rolls but it is never stated that they are interchangeable. If the rules did, I would not be having this discussion with you. But we are lacking a premise that either says that a) attack rolls are the same as shoving contests, b) shoving contests can cause hits, c) a won shoving contest is the same as a hit, nor d) shoving contests have the same effects as attack rolls. As long as we lack any premise like that, inference that a shove causes a hit is illogical as there is no logical proof for it to do so.

The difference between your comparisons of a shove and an attack, and of an attack with a sword or a club, is that (if you are using math or programmer terminology) the first changes the function, the other the parameters. The juice example changes both. A better analogy then:

If you have a set of ingredients (parameters) and two recipes (functions); one for making soup and one for making pies. The two outcomes are then soups or pies, but you would not expect the recipe for making soup to create a pie for you. Both are still cooking but do different things. As long as you follow the recipe, changing ingredients does not change the end result from its type of dish even if the flavor of it will change. Changing the fruit in the pie and it is still a pie. Changing the veggies in the soup and it is still a soup. Changing the function changes the type of outcome. Changing parameters, you get the same type of result but a different value of it. You are currently using a recipe for pie and saying you will also get soup. That is not how logic or the rules of inference works, and we wouldn't be able to write any worthwhile rules without those. Sidenote:(Taking some courses in logic is great if you would want to go into game design or programming as both has you writing logically consistent rules)

So we have two different functions that can be called when we perform an attack:

a) Attack Roll (Parameters: Modifiers, d20 roll, AC) returns outcome: critical hit, hit, or miss
b) Shove Contest (Parameters: your Modifiers, your d20 roll, target's Modifiers, target's d20 roll) returns outcome: won, tie, or lost (tie and lost both result in nothing happening as the target attempts to keep up status quo)

If you switch out the attack roll, there is nothing that says that shoves creates hits. It also creates the discrepancy between rolling equal to the AC on attack roll being an hit, and getting a tie on a shove contest resulting in a fail. And another that attack rolls can crit while ability checks cannot, but crits always hits, so on a roll of 20, the attacker should win instead of tie, if shove contests counts as hits. If you interpret it to be that shove contests hits, the rules quickly gets very messy. If you don't do an attack roll, all the rules related to attack rolls go out of the house.

You apparently didn't read what I wrote. I did not say that a shove is not an "attack", I said it is not done by "making an attack" since "making an attack" is defined as "making an attack roll", and since you do something else than "make an attack roll" you are therefore not "making an attack". A shove is still a special attack, but according to what is written, it does not count as "making an attack". In fact, no where in the rules for shoving is it stated that it should use the rules for "making an attack", and it does not fall in under either of the other definitions for making an attack "Whether you’re 1) striking with a melee weapon, 2) firing a weapon at range, or 3) making an attack roll as part of a spell, an attack has a simple structure" or "If there’s ever any question whether something you’re doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: 4) if you’re making an attack roll, you’re making an attack". You already stated that a shove does not need to use a melee weapon so it doesn't fall under 1 and since it does not involve an attack roll, it doesn't fall under 4 either. It is not written in the rules that special attacks follow the rules in "making an attack".


The conclusions drawn from what the text says by itself is "the rule". "The RAW interpretation of a rule" is the conclusion you reach by reading those rules with only the written context in mind.

This is the definition of RAW in the Sage Advice Compendium. I don't even understand what you mean by it has nothing to do with the conclusion you reach by reading the rules, you need to reach a conclusion to make a ruling regardless of whether you're ruling RAF, RAI or RAW.

RAF - The conclusion you reach when you want to rule in the most fun way
RAI - The conclusion you reach with the context of the designers intent
RAW - The conclusion you reach with the context of only the written rules

Perhaps it would be better if instead of saying "Conclusion" I had said "Ruling".

"with only the written context in mind" means that it is objective and not subjective as that would require you to add more then the written context from your mind. If you are making judgments on rulings and base them on the logic of shoving someone implies that the shove is a hit due to real world knowledge, you add something not written to your mind and thus no longer have it as it is written. A shove causing a hit is not a written rule and therefore not RAW. You can infer it based on either a illogical reading of the rules (which probably is incorrect) or by applying your real world knowledge (which is not limited to the written context). In the DnD community, we don't use the Rules as Interpreted abbreviation for some reason, other RP communities does. Technically, even the Compendium is RAW as it is an official written document made by the games publisher even if many at this community shuns it.

edit: sorry for accidentally writing a wall of text again. =S

[ProsecutorGodot]

"with only the written context in mind" means that it is objective and not subjective as that would require you to add more then the written context from your mind. If you are making judgments on rulings and base them on the logic of shoving someone implies that the shove is a hit due to real world knowledge, you add something not written to your mind and thus no longer have it as it is written. A shove causing a hit is not a written rule and therefore not RAW. You can infer it based on either a illogical reading of the rules (which probably is incorrect) or by applying your real world knowledge (which is not limited to the written context). In the DnD community, we don't use the Rules as Interpreted abbreviation for some reason, other RP communities does. Technically, even the Compendium is RAW as it is an official written document made by the games publisher even if many at this community shuns it.

I didn't reach the conclusion through any real word inferences, I laid out exactly which text from the book I followed that would lead to such a conclusion.

Counterpoint: You can't claim that a reading of the rules that makes no inferences being "illogical" means its not RAW. The lighting and vision rules are plenty illogical, are they not RAW because they often don't make sense?

[Man_Over_Game]

Rather than arguing on the whole RAI vs. RAW (which is pointless, think about what it'd take to change your own stance on the topic), I'd just like to point out what's fair.

Ranger spent a spell slot, his Bonus Action, his Concentration, and an Attack, on this one scenario. Even if you can't condone the base value of his attack, wouldn't it be reasonable to at least include the value of the spell he cast on the target (and is unlikely to get any other use out of it)?

The Ranger's already losing a lot of value in this interpretation, does he deserve to lose more?

[Kyutaru]

RAW is not just based on how you interpret them, it is based on how they are written. What is written is objective, while the interpretation will be subjective as soon as we add something more than what is actually written. That has nothing to do with RAI. If RAW would require these subjective interpretations, we would not have the sticky thread for RAW rulings as each rule would then be up to debate since they would need to be subjectively interpreted.
Oh that thread would be vulnerable to debate regardless. As was mentioned a few posts above, language is quite ambiguous at times and the same message can carry multiple meanings to different individuals. Take for example the famous sentence "I didn't say he stole the money." That right there has seven different possible meanings and without context you are liable to reach the incorrect conclusion. Depending on who is reading what is written and what assumptions they have made based on which words are being stressed the exact same sentence can cause misunderstandings between native speakers. That's even before we take dialects and regional usage into account.

Subjective interpretations will always play a part in RAW because interpreting the language itself is subjective.


The Ranger's already losing a lot of value in this interpretation, does he deserve to lose more?
Can we not do this every time magic is involved? The Fighter spends his entire class and feature selection on doing things that this enemy can be flat out immune to with no magic spell to fallback on as a consolation prize. While it's unfortunate when any character runs into this situation it's absurd that whenever magic is involved it's given preferential treatment.

[Man_Over_Game]

Can we not do this every time magic is involved? The Fighter spends his entire class and feature selection on doing things that this enemy can be flat out immune to with no magic spell to fallback on as a consolation prize. While it's unfortunate when any character runs into this situation it's absurd that whenever magic is involved it's given preferential treatment.

Just because someone else has it worse doesn't mean it's not a problem you can't address now.

I'd say having anything immune to the majority of a player's investment is a dumb problem to have for the sake of game design. Yet, here we are.

The question isn't "Should we make creatures immune", but "What should we do when X happens to a creature that's immune".

So do we continue to make stupid mistakes for the sake of consistency, or do we start fixing them?


Personally, I don't care about whether it's magic or not. I care about what the player spent. In this, case, he spent the resource with the obvious expectation that it'd have value, and the DM didn't break those expectations when the player made that investment. In my eyes, if a DM lets you spend something that wasn't clear that it wouldn't have any effect from doing so, it's the DM's obligation to break his expectation to meet yours (so long as it's reasonable).

[diplomancer]

Oh that thread would be vulnerable to debate regardless. As was mentioned a few posts above, language is quite ambiguous at times and the same message can carry multiple meanings to different individuals. Take for example the famous sentence "I didn't say he stole the money." That right there has seven different possible meanings and without context you are liable to reach the incorrect conclusion. Depending on who is reading what is written and what assumptions they have made based on which words are being stressed the exact same sentence can cause misunderstandings between native speakers. That's even before we take dialects and regional usage into account.

Subjective interpretations will always play a part in RAW because interpreting the language itself is subjective.


Can we not do this every time magic is involved? The Fighter spends his entire class and feature selection on doing things that this enemy can be flat out immune to with no magic spell to fallback on as a consolation prize. While it's unfortunate when any character runs into this situation it's absurd that whenever magic is involved it's given preferential treatment.

RAW, Hunter's Mark damage is either untyped damage, to which the creature is not immune, or piercing damage from a magic source, to which the creature is also not immune. It's preferential treatment for magic, sure, but that's not Hunter Mark's fault.

There should be more magic immune creatures (about the same number as regular damage immune creatures there are)

[Kyutaru]

So do we continue to make stupid mistakes for the sake of consistency, or do we start fixing them?
I think here it's only an opinion that it's a mistake, let alone a stupid one. Having creatures with immunities was common in 2E and rendered certain classes much less useful in that particular encounter. But that's how RPGs work, Clerics have Turn Undead and holy spells and it makes them flat out better against unholy corpses than other people. What, do you think when you face an iron golem that's immune to basically everything magical then the fighter gets to the shrug and say "Now you know how it feels" or something? It's a role-based game and depending on the encounter some roles are minimized. The goal for the DM is to provide other options for them in the same combat, part of why encounters are mixed, as well as providing other encounters for them to shine.

"Everyone is in the spotlight" doesn't work and just means that no one is special. I try not to look at the table and make sure everyone is doing the same average damage per battle because not even MMOs are built that way and they'll have upwards of 40 players expecting to have similar levels of contribution to the team.


RAW, Hunter's Mark damage is either untyped damage, to which the creature is not immune, or piercing damage from a magic source, to which the creature is also not immune. It's preferential treatment for magic, sure, but that's not Hunter Mark's fault.I know, I posted a few pages back my thoughts on the spell and concluded it should do piercing damage before taking designer intent into account.


There should be more magic immune creatures (about the same number as regular damage immune creatures there are)
Bingo, but folks also need to remember that immunities aren't non-existent as is. Rogues had to contend with lots of creatures immune to sneak attack while casters had to deal with lots of mental effects being useless against things without brains.

Removing that leaves skeletons getting stabbed in the heart and zombies able to be put to sleep.

[Man_Over_Game]

I think here it's only an opinion that it's a mistake, let alone a stupid one. Having creatures with immunities was common in 2E and rendered certain classes much less useful in that particular encounter. But that's how RPGs work, Clerics have Turn Undead and holy spells and it makes them flat out better against unholy corpses than other people. What, do you think when you face an iron golem that's immune to basically everything magical then the fighter gets to the shrug and say "Now you know how it feels" or something? It's a role-based game and depending on the encounter some roles are minimized. The goal for the DM is to provide other options for them in the same combat, part of why encounters are mixed, as well as providing other encounters for them to shine.

"Everyone is in the spotlight" doesn't work and just means that no one is special. I try not to look at the table and make sure everyone doing is the same average damage per battle because not even MMOs are built that way and they'll have upwards of 40 players expecting to have similar levels of contribution to the team.

I feel like that contradicts your previous message, though.

You say that we shouldn't favor magic, as the Fighter is constantly disadvantaged from investment problems.
But at the same time, you say that we shouldn't take the players' opinions and investments into account, as it's impossible to make everyone happy.

So what is your position?

[Kyutaru]

I feel like that contradicts your previous position, though.

You say that we shouldn't favor magic, as the Fighter is constantly disadvantaged.
But at the same time, you say that we shouldn't take the players' opinions into account, as it's impossible to make everyone happy.

So what is your position?Whoa whoa, where do I say don't take player's opinions into account? Much less where do I say it's impossible to make everyone happy? Just because everyone being in the spotlight at the same time is a bad idea? There are singers that take the stage with backup and there are choruses that harmonize with no one standing out. Everyone getting a chance to be in the spotlight from the bard diplomancing to the rogue infiltrating the camp to the fighter hacking apart the bear to the wizard dealing with the magical wards is the way it works. Homogenization of the play experience is anathema. That's my position.

On the title topic I already suggested that it works as added piercing from the reading. Not due to balance or any other reason but purely from how it was worded.

[Fnissalot]

I didn't reach the conclusion through any real word inferences, I laid out exactly which text from the book I followed that would lead to such a conclusion.

Counterpoint: You can't claim that a reading of the rules that makes no inferences being "illogical" means its not RAW. The lighting and vision rules are plenty illogical, are they not RAW because they often don't make sense?
You didn't base it on a real world inference, Rsp29a have done it when they state that their knowledge in English language matters. Your logical inference makes a conclusion that is not logical based on the premises we have, i.e. it is illogical since it does not follow the rules of inference. If we say you can get a cat as a pet. The cat would be white. Alternatively, instead of getting a cat, you can get a dog as a pet. The dog would be brown. If you pick the dog, you expect it to be brown and not white, even if dogs can be white. According to the rules of inference, saying that the dog would be white is an illogical statement. Just because you don't get a cat, it would not mean that the dog would be white. In this analogy, the pet is the attack, the cat is the attack roll, white is a hit or a miss, a dog is a shoving contest, and brown would be a win or a loss. Saying that shoves causes hits is illogical based on the premises given by the rules.

Fair points, there is a 3rd option: the rules don't follow logic and then we don't need to care about what they actually say and just have to define a system of logic for ourselves.

[Kyutaru]

Fair points, there is a 3rd option: the rules don't follow logic and then we don't need to care about what they actually say and just have to define a system of logic for ourselves.
That I feel is the intention of vague world mechanics. There's nothing quite specifying physics itself works identical to our world because so many adventures can take place in the planes or in worlds unlike ours. DMs can come up with custom homebrew universes without needing to go through and redefine what doesn't work on their planet because the rules are light and barely scrape the subject. The rules that are heavily defined are ones pertaining to combat and character interactions. We don't even have working inertia to say that shoving someone while going at 200 mph causes them to go back any more than usual. It's completely up to the DM in these cases.

[ProsecutorGodot]

You didn't base it on a real world inference, Rsp29a have done it when they state that their knowledge in English language matters. Your logical inference makes a conclusion that is not logical based on the premises we have, i.e. it is illogical since it does not follow the rules of inference. If we say you can get a cat as a pet. The cat would be white. Alternatively, instead of getting a cat, you can get a dog as a pet. The dog would be brown. If you pick the dog, you expect it to be brown and not white, even if dogs can be white. According to the rules of inference, saying that the dog would be white is an illogical statement. Just because you don't get a cat, it would not mean that the dog would be white. In this analogy, the pet is the attack, the cat is the attack roll, white is a hit or a miss, a dog is a shoving contest, and brown would be a win or a loss. Saying that shoves causes hits is illogical based on the premises given by the rules.
I really don't follow, I didn't infer anything, I quoted the rules directly. I don't really think forming an analogy is a very good support for your argument either, all you've done is frame a new argument with your idea supported by terms that you've defined.


Fair points, there is a 3rd option: the rules don't follow logic and then we don't need to care about what they actually say and just have to define a system of logic for ourselves.

That's called RAF, the developers recognize it and recommend it for when their intentions or design fails to meet player expectations.

[Christew]

I think it is also relevant to point out why this has shifted from the OP's question about Hunter's Mark to Rsp29a's claims about Hex. Hunter's Mark requires a weapon attack (which would preclude shove) while Hex only requires an attack (allowing for the ambiguity under discussion).

Admittedly drifting into RAI territory, but do we really think that Hex was designed to allow for shove while Hunter's Mark wasn't? Or is it more likely that Hex was designed to allow for spell attacks (i.e. Eldritch Blast) and careless language usage created an opportunity for confusion?

[diplomancer]

I think it is also relevant to point out why this has shifted from the OP's question about Hunter's Mark to Rsp29a's claims about Hex. Hunter's Mark requires a weapon attack (which would preclude shove) while Hex only requires an attack (allowing for the ambiguity under discussion).

Admittedly drifting into RAI territory, but do we really think that Hex was designed to allow for shove while Hunter's Mark wasn't? Or is it more likely that Hex was designed to allow for spell attacks (i.e. Eldritch Blast) and careless language usage created an opportunity for confusion?

Hey, I can shove someone by tripping them with my spear! So Hunter's Mark damage should apply!

[Fnissalot]

I really don't follow, I didn't infer anything, I quoted the rules directly. I don't really think forming an analogy is a very good support for your argument either, all you've done is frame a new argument with your idea supported by terms that you've defined.


You inferred it here. Stating how two premises interact is inferring. This is not directly quoting the rules:


Additional context we need is the definition of Attack Roll: "When you make an attack, your attack roll determines whether the attack hits or misses."

So if we choose to Grapple someone, knowing that by RAW the only thing that is replaced in this action is the attack roll, we can follow it like this: "When you make a shoving attack, your Strength (Athletics) check determines whether the attack hits or misses"

The rules gives the following premises:
* When you make an attack, you make an attack roll.
* your Attack roll determines if the attack hits or misses
* Instead of an attack roll, you can make a shove contest.
* Shove contests can be won, tied or lost.

They are the same as the analogy with the pets. These terms are how they are written in the rules, not how I defined them, and they have the ~2000 year old subject of logic to back up how to infer them. The relations between the statements are the same regardless of subject matter.


I think it is also relevant to point out why this has shifted from the OP's question about Hunter's Mark to Rsp29a's claims about Hex. Hunter's Mark requires a weapon attack (which would preclude shove) while Hex only requires an attack (allowing for the ambiguity under discussion).

Admittedly drifting into RAI territory, but do we really think that Hex was designed to allow for shove while Hunter's Mark wasn't? Or is it more likely that Hex was designed to allow for spell attacks (i.e. Eldritch Blast) and careless language usage created an opportunity for confusion?

I agree, fair point! I won't push this further as it doesn't provide anything more to the topic.

[Man_Over_Game]

Whoa whoa, where do I say don't take player's opinions into account? Much less where do I say it's impossible to make everyone happy? Just because everyone being in the spotlight at the same time is a bad idea? There are singers that take the stage with backup and there are choruses that harmonize with no one standing out. Everyone getting a chance to be in the spotlight from the bard diplomancing to the rogue infiltrating the camp to the fighter hacking apart the bear to the wizard dealing with the magical wards is the way it works. Homogenization of the play experience is anathema. That's my position.

On the title topic I already suggested that it works as added piercing from the reading. Not due to balance or any other reason but purely from how it was worded.

Ah, I see what you're saying. What you said makes sense now. I misunderstood what you were saying, sorry about that.

I think that, if that were the DM's intent, he'd be correcting the player when Hunter's Mark was cast, not when it was used. To me, debating whether Hunter's Mark works on an immune creature feels like debating whether Shadow Monks should be able to teleport through magical Darkness. Either it is, or it isn't, based on your interpretation of RAW vs. RAI, when the argument should be whether or not it makes the game more fun for the table.

The debate itself feels pedantic. What is the goal?

[Kyutaru]

The debate itself feels pedantic. What is the goal?
I think it's just for mental exercise or power tripping on being right. Though believe it or not some people use intelligent forum posts to argue in their favor around the table. So the purpose then is to get all the rules lawyering out of the way in an environment that isn't surrounded by friends. Doesn't make much sense to me any way you slice it which is I'm usually dropping my opinion and leaving it at that unless someone comments on it.

I had a guy in another topic think that 2E was a nonsensical backwards rule system with too much DM control which means it was lazy rules. When really it was based in a time when computers hadn't been well developed yet and RPGs were little more than text adventures where YES YOU HAVE TO SPECIFY EVERYTHING YOU DO EXACTLY. The computer DM isn't going to forgive you for not typing "check door for traps" because you were too much in a rush to open it. That little mirror that spawned all the demons? You had no idea it was even there because you didn't "look at room". They were used to being vigilant about everything and examining every detail closely for significance and using intelligence and experience to posit what it might mean. Not a bad thing, just a different mindset. People do the same all the time with the plots to movies and predicting what's going to happen next based on a few isolated clues and foreshadowing.

But for some reason folks will only appreciate what they agree with and reject something that is in opposition because it challenges their view indirectly. The debates are the result of that with both sides trying not to back down by accepting all views as valid.

[Tanarii]

The conclusions drawn from what the text says by itself is "the rule". "The RAW interpretation of a rule" is the conclusion you reach by reading those rules with only the written context in mind.

This is the definition of RAW in the Sage Advice Compendium. I don't even understand what you mean by it has nothing to do with the conclusion you reach by reading the rules, you need to reach a conclusion to make a ruling regardless of whether you're ruling RAF, RAI or RAW.

RAF - The conclusion you reach when you want to rule in the most fun way
RAI - The conclusion you reach with the context of the designers intent
RAW - The conclusion you reach with the context of only the written rules

Perhaps it would be better if instead of saying "Conclusion" I had said "Ruling".


For clarity, the actual wording of the SAC is: "RAW. “Rules as written”—that’s what RAW stands for. When I dwell on the RAW interpretation of a rule, I’m studying what the text says in context, without regard to the designers’ intent. The text is forced to stand on its own. Whenever I consider a rule, I start with this perspective; it’s important for me to see what you see, not what I wished we’d published or thought we’d published."

I believe Tanarii is alluding to the fact that "RAW interpretation" is merely a perspective on the rules. The ambiguities of language and context make it so that it is extremely rare that a written rule will have one and only one possible contextual interpretation. This means that even if you are approaching a given rule from the RAW perspective, you may have a different interpretation of the wording and context than another might. Therefore the actual wording of the rules is the only objective truth, any interpretation (even a RAW focused one) of those words introduces subjectivity.
No, I'm saying that RAW is the rule as written. That's it. No less, no more.

Any interpretation or conclusion is no longer RAW. RAW is a quote. That's it.

RAI on the other hand implies an interpretation or conclusion. Whether is be the DMs at the table, the designers in an official document (SAC), a poster on the forums, or one of the designers tweeting. How much weight any given DM or poster wants to give to RAI other than their own interpretation is up to them.

[ProsecutorGodot]

No, I'm saying that RAW is the rule as written. That's it. No less, no more.

Any interpretation is no longer RAW. RAW is a quote. That's it.

The conclusion comes as part of reading them. If you suggest that RAW doesn't include the literal meaning associated with the words then RAW is meaningless, it's just words that we aren't even allowed to draw conclusions from.

If you're drawing a line in the sand that discussions need to make a clear and definite distinction between "RAW" and "RAW Ruling" then I'm sincerely confused at why such a difference is important.

When I rule in favor of RAW, I have to actually read the rules and draw a conclusion from them. "Lizardfolk have a base walking speed of 30ft" is RAW, the conclusion I reach is that if I have a Lizardfolk PC his base walking speed is 30ft. I literally cannot separate drawing a conclusion from the process of reading RAW.

[Christew]

No, I'm saying that RAW is the rule as written. That's it. No less, no more.

Any interpretation or conclusion is no longer RAW. RAW is a quote. That's it.

RAI on the other hand implies an interpretation or conclusion. Whether is be the DMs at the table, the designers in an official document (SAC), a poster on the forums, or one of the designers tweeting. How much weight any given DM or poster wants to give to RAI other than their own interpretation is up to them.
I mean, that is pretty much exactly what I said, but points for concision, I guess.

Anyway, this has officially veered into the realm of the thoroughly unproductive, so I'm getting off. Good luck all.

[RSP]

The rules gives the following premises:
* When you make an attack, you make an attack roll.
* your Attack roll determines if the attack hits or misses
* Instead of an attack roll, you can make a shove contest.
* Shove contests can be won, tied or lost.

See how here “hits” and “misses” are using their common English meaning, that’s how they’re used in the RAW. You don’t require any special knowledge of the 5e rules to understand “the attack hits or misses” because there is no special 5e rule redefining them. Just like in the RAW.

[RSP]

Also this is a poor analogy.
"I attack with my shield" - okay, roll an attack with an improvised weapon, if you hit roll damage
"I shove with my shield" - okay, roll a contested ability check, if you win decide push or prone...
...One of these things is not like the others and presenting them as though they are equivalent is misleading at best.


RAW, a Shove is an Attack. My PC hitting someone with a shield and knocking them down is also within the RAW definition of an attack.What about that is misleading?



You seem to be resting your notion of victory on the fact that RAW can be interpreted in such a way. Unfortunately, it doesn't follow that RAW can only be interpreted in such a way, nor that it should be interpreted in such a way.

If you think you should invent special meanings for words in the RAW, go ahead, but that’s not even interpreting the RAW.

[Christew]

Okay fine, I'm back in because I apparently cannot help myself.

RAW, a Shove is an Attack. My PC hitting someone with a shield and knocking them down is also within the RAW definition of an attack.What about that is misleading?
I mean, the analogy that you made was the misleading part. You know, that part that you artfully elided when you quoted me? Something about the difference between a weapon attack and a shove being the same as the difference between an attack with a sword and a hammer? You can scroll back up to read the full text if need be.


If you think you should invent special meanings for words in the RAW, go ahead, but that’s not even interpreting the RAW.
At what point did I say that we should invent special meanings for words?

[Tanarii]

The conclusion comes as part of reading them. If you suggest that RAW doesn't include the literal meaning associated with the words then RAW is meaningless, it's just words that we aren't even allowed to draw conclusions from.

If you're drawing a line in the sand that discussions need to make a clear and definite distinction between "RAW" and "RAW Ruling" then I'm sincerely confused at why such a difference is important.

When I rule in favor of RAW, I have to actually read the rules and draw a conclusion from them. "Lizardfolk have a base walking speed of 30ft" is RAW, the conclusion I reach is that if I have a Lizardfolk PC his base walking speed is 30ft. I literally cannot separate drawing a conclusion from the process of reading RAW.


I mean, that is pretty much exactly what I said, but points for concision, I guess.

Anyway, this has officially veered into the realm of the thoroughly unproductive, so I'm getting off. Good luck all.
The point is claiming a conclusion is RAW or not RAW is pointless.

All you've got is your personal conclusion as to RAI and someone elses conclusion.

And of course, for many years now we've had developers telling us what their RAI was. Their conclusion. That's potentially nice because in theory, it gives us insight if we want it. It's especially nice when they give us an official compiled document that gives us insight that they've put some extra time into thinking about. How much you or I care about it Is up to us as individuals.

But anyone claiming their personal conclusion is more "RAW" than developer conclusion in an officially explained document is ignoring the meaning of RAW. They are trying to convince us/claim their personal RAI should hold more weight than developer explained RAI or our own personal RAI, by tagging it incorrectly as RAW.

Convincing us on the weight of your own argument, tell us that the developer official document is Wrong. Maybe even Why it is Wromg, although personally I often don't always go that far. :smallamused:. The developer official document isn't a trump card, and that's important because lots of people like to treat it as such. But at the same time, it is additional data.

[RSP]

I mean, the analogy that you made was the misleading part. You know, that part that you artfully elided when you quoted me? Something about the difference between a weapon attack and a shove being the same as the difference between an attack with a sword and a hammer? You can scroll back up to read the full text if need be.

You mean what I stated showing that either an attack or a Shove can hit as a response to Fniss? Take those statements for they were, a showing that his logic applied to this situation wasn’t working as he was stated changing the cause necessitated changing the effect. Both the examples I stated showed how in 5e one can change the cause and not change the effect.

So again, how is that misleading? If you’re going to accuse me of misleading people, at least give me the courtesy of explaining what I’m doing that is misleading in your opinion.



At what point did I say that we should invent special meanings for words?

Perhaps I just assumed you were taking Fniss’ argument as your own. In your opinion, is the word “hit” given a special meaning in the rules of 5e, one that isn’t a common English meaning of the word; or is it used as it’s common English meaning?

[Kyutaru]

The point is claiming a conclusion is RAW or not RAW is pointless.

All you've got is your personal conclusion as to RAI and someone elses conclusion.

But anyone claiming their personal conclusion is more "RAW" than developer conclusion in an officially explained document is ignoring the meaning of RAW. They are trying to convince us/claim their personal RAI should hold more weight than developer explained RAI or our own personal RAI, by tagging it incorrectly as RAW.
I see the disconnect here and it's due to your definition of RAW being grossly disparate from what most people mean when they say RAW or RAI.

RAW is the Rules As Written which is an interpretation of what the game rules literally say, as nonsensical as that conclusion can be at times, regardless of designer intent and owing only to what is grammatically correct. RAW arguments are based on identifying what the rule is literally conveying to the reader and people will play it as it stands. These arguments come into play heavily in competitive games and barring an official ruling that clarifies the situation can be a source of heated debate.

RAI is the Rules As Intended which is an interpretation of what the game rules were meant to say, assuming full developer knowledge of the ambiguities of the language and the many ways people could misconstrue their meaning. With many rules and effects being quite short in text length it sometimes invites many different readings as RAW. When the RAW says something the developer did not intend and by all accounts is nonsense compared to what they had planned the effect to mean then the RAI is proposed or clarified to explain how the spirit of the rule works.

Often erratas contain corrections to RAW while official judge rulings contain what is RAI. In either case, what the developer says tends to be how people play it regardless of the language of the rule.

[Tanarii]

I see the disconnect here and it's due to your definition of RAW being grossly disparate from what most people mean when they say RAW or RAI.
And I'm pointing out that those most people are grossly wrong.

Not only are they grossly wrong, they're often trying to use the grossly wrong term to justify something that isn't justifiable, as a justifiable dismissal. To legitimize the dismissal. Otherwise I'd just let it slide.

Say the SAC is wrong. Maybe even say why. Say you want to argue based on the original text only because reasons. But don't try to hide behind a misdefinition of RAW to justify it.

[Kyutaru]

And I'm pointing out that those most people are grossly wrong.

Not only are they grossly wrong, they're trying to use the grossly wrong term to justify something that isn't justifiable, as a justifiable dismissal. Otherwise I'd just let it slide.

Say the SAC is wrong. Maybe even say why. But don't try to hide behind a misdefinition or RAW to justify it.
I mean what I stated is not only the typical definition of the terms in games like Magic the Gathering and Warhammer 40k but it's also the definition Jeremy Crawford presents himself for how RAW and RAI are to be viewed. The developers themselves disagree with your view on what RAW means.

https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/sage-advice/philosophy-behind-rules-and-rulings

You're entitled to your own definition but in a public discussion it helps to clarify your meaning so others will understand where your definition differs from the conventional one.

[ProsecutorGodot]

The point is claiming a conclusion is RAW or not RAW is pointless.

All you've got is your personal conclusion as to RAI and someone elses conclusion.



Players do not decide RAI, the intention behind rules is squarely in the designers territory, so I'd say your definition of RAI is also grossly incorrect.

When players read RAW and draw their own conclusion, it is based on RAW. Players are not the designers, and their reading of RAW doesn't become RAI.

[Tanarii]

You're entitled to your own definition but in a public discussion it helps to clarify your meaning so others will understand where your definition differs from the conventional one.
Sure. And luckily other people, including Jeremy Crawford in the link you've provided, occasionally point out where their definition differs from the conventional one. :smalltongue:

But other times, it's necessary to call them on it. Always a good idea when they're using it as a cornerstone of bolstering their arguments.


Players do not decide RAI, the intention behind rules is squarely in the designers territory, so I'd say your definition of RAI is also grossly incorrect.RAI is inherently about individual interpretation. No one can claim it as their own territory. Each person has to decide what they think it is on their own.

[Christew]

You mean what I stated showing that either an attack or a Shove can hit as a response to Fniss? Take those statements for they were, a showing that his logic applied to this situation wasn’t working as he was stated changing the cause necessitated changing the effect. Both the examples I stated showed how in 5e one can change the cause and not change the effect.

So again, how is that misleading? If you’re going to accuse me of misleading people, at least give me the courtesy of explaining what I’m doing that is misleading in your opinion.
As I said, the analogy is misleading because it presents two things that are functionally different as analogous to two things that are functionally similar.


Perhaps I just assumed you were taking Fniss’ argument as your own. In your opinion, is the word “hit” given a special meaning in the rules of 5e, one that isn’t a common English meaning of the word; or is it used as it’s common English meaning?
In my opinion, the word "hit" (like most English words and words in general really) has many different meanings based on usage and context. It can be a transitive verb, an intransitive verb, or a noun and under each of those uses it has multiple possible definitions.

I also think that all of that is moot because the word "hit" does not appear in the rules for shoving a creature. If you want to shoehorn Shove into the simple structure of making an attack, you have to replace both the method of determining modifiers (because it is not a normal attack) and the method of resolving the attack (because it is not a normal attack). The text of shoving a creature states all this pretty clearly because, like a special weapon, a special melee attack has special rules governing its use that are explained in its description.

From Resolve the Attack: "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."
Shove has rules that specify otherwise. Shove causes a special effect (push or prone) based on an ability contest instead of damage based on an attack roll.

[ProsecutorGodot]

RAI is inherently about individual interpretation. No one can claim it as their own territory. Each person has to decide what they think it is on their own.

No, RAI is the intention of the designers. To understand the intention of what is written (or often what want but was intended to be) you need to have actually designed the system.



RAI. Some of you are especially interested in knowing
the intent behind a rule. That’s where RAI comes in: “rules
as intended.” This approach is all about what the designers meant when they wrote something. In a perfect world, RAW and RAI align perfectly, but sometimes the words on the page don’t succeed at communicating the designers’ intent. Or perhaps the words succeed with one group of players but not with another.
When I write about the RAI interpretation of a rule, I’ll
be pulling back the curtain and letting you know what the
D&D team meant when we wrote a certain rule

[Kyutaru]

Sure. And luckily other people, including Jeremy Crawford in the link you've provided, occasionally point out where their definition differs from the conventional one. :smalltongue:Not sure what you mean with Crawford but this was precisely what I was suggesting was the disconnect. That your version differs from convention and as such when others use the word RAW they are not wrong so much as referring to it in a different context.


RAI is inherently about individual interpretation. No one can claim it as their own territory. Each person has to decide what they think it is on their own.
Agreed save for the developer, as by the definition of RAI the designer intent is what matters and each individual (excluding them) is equally valid in coming up with their own interpretations for what the designers meant when they wrote something. The designers themselves already know what they meant and can speak with 100% accuracy to the RAI.

[Keravath]

The conclusion comes as part of reading them. If you suggest that RAW doesn't include the literal meaning associated with the words then RAW is meaningless, it's just words that we aren't even allowed to draw conclusions from.

If you're drawing a line in the sand that discussions need to make a clear and definite distinction between "RAW" and "RAW Ruling" then I'm sincerely confused at why such a difference is important.

When I rule in favor of RAW, I have to actually read the rules and draw a conclusion from them. "Lizardfolk have a base walking speed of 30ft" is RAW, the conclusion I reach is that if I have a Lizardfolk PC his base walking speed is 30ft. I literally cannot separate drawing a conclusion from the process of reading RAW.

RAW is rules as written.

Sometimes they are clear and unambiguous requiring no interpretation (and usually no argument).

Sometimes they are worded in a complicated way so that the meaning is clear if you read it as intended but can lead to confusion when read in an alternate manner.

Sometimes the rules are ambiguous with multiple valid interpretations (the usual basis for arguments ... where folks often forget that all sides are honestly correct)

Finally, the "rules" are just the beginning and the interpretation at each table will vary somewhat depending on the DM. Players state something they want to do, anything, and the DM has to come up with a mechanism to resolve that action - usually with some sort of skill check, attack roll, saving throw or other random resolution.

So, why do we have these rules discussions? Someone wants to know how other folks would run it. They want to know if they are misinterpreting a rule, or perhaps not running it as well as they could.

Both of the ongoing arguments in this thread are due to ambiguity and ANY interpretation a DM wants to make regarding them is valid (both sides of the argument are correct).

1) What type of damage does the hunter's mark spell do?
- the spell says the attack does an extra d6 of damage.

Viewpoint 1:
- the weapon does extra damage due to the effect of the spell. The spell is a magical effect. This viewpoint concludes that the attack does an additional d6 of damage of the weapon type from a magical source.

Viewpoint 2:
-the weapon does extra damage due to the effect of the spell. The weapon is non-magical. This viewpoint concludes that the attack does an additional d6 of damage of the weapon type from a non-magical source.

I know which way I rule it but it is completely valid for other DMs to play it from the other perspective.

2) Triggering hunter's mark or hex as the result of an attack that "hits" an opponent without requiring a to hit roll.

Viewpoint 1:
- no hit roll is made. A "hit" does not occur in game terms. Hunter's mark or hex do not cause damage.

Viewpoint 2:
- an attack is made. The effect can be described as "hitting" your opponent in plain language terms. Someone shoving another with a shield could be described as "hitting" an opponent ... and it is an attack. As a result, hunter's mark or hex trigger on the attack involving a "hit".

Again, I know which way I would rule it but I can understand another DM choosing to rule it the other way. The rules as written don't cover this case explicitly.

I find this argument a bit more problematic than the first since even a failed shove attempt likely involves "hitting" your opponent so by that reasoning any sort of shove/grapple should trigger the damage since whether the technique is successful or not you are still hitting your opponent ... but again, it is open to interpretation and up to the DM.

---

The bottom line is that these discussions let folks look at how they run things (or play things) and decide whether they prefer the other interpretations presented. In the rare cases, these discussions also clarify what the rules are saying if someone is confused.



e.g. the level of a spell being cast is the spell slot being used even if the spell can't be upcast ... for example, shield cast with a 5th level slot requires a 5th level counterspell to automatically counter. Some folks get confused between the base level of a spell and the actual level it is cast at. The rules are clear on this but it is commonly missed. (It makes it hard for a warlock to effectively use a ring of spell storing for example since they don't have lower level slots and a 9th level warlock could only put a single shield spell in a ring of spell storing).

[Fnissalot]

R

I find this argument a bit more problematic than the first since even a failed shove attempt likely involves "hitting" your opponent so by that reasoning any sort of shove/grapple should trigger the damage since whether the technique is successful or not you are still hitting your opponent ... but again, it is open to interpretation and up to the DM.


Also in olympic wrestling and sumo wrestling, you are allowed to grapple and shove but not to hit. So, language wise and IRL, you can fail a shove and still hit, and do a successful grapple with hitting.

[RSP]

As I said, the analogy is misleading because it presents two things that are functionally different as analogous to two things that are functionally similar.


At no point am I comparing the first part of what I said (Attack and Shove both hitting) with the second (sword and hammer both doing damage). It’s two examples used to show that in 5e changing a “cause” doesn’t necessarily change an “effect” as Fniss was arguing.



In my opinion, the word "hit" (like most English words and words in general really) has many different meanings based on usage and context.

Okay, so then you agree it’s not a game term, it appears. If it’s not a game term (that is, it doesn’t have a special meaning outside of its common English meaning in the rules of 5e), then there is nothing wrong with saying smashing your shield into someone else with enough force to knock them Prone is a hit. And we know a Shove is an Attack based on the explicit RAW.

Therefore, it’s legitimate to say smashing your shield into someone else with enough force to knock them Prone is an Attack that hits. And that it fulfilles the two requirements of Hex: a) that it’s an Attack; and b) that it hits.

[Fnissalot]

At no point am I comparing the first part of what I said (Attack and Shove both hitting) with the second (sword and hammer both doing damage). It’s two examples used to show that in 5e changing a “cause” doesn’t necessarily change an “effect” as Fniss was arguing.

I never said two causes couldn't have the same effect. Just that, if you replace the cause, you cannot expect the result to stay the same. The rules states The reason both those weapons deals damage, is that both explicitly say that they do. If I attack with a new weapon, I don't keep using the stats of my last weapon, instead I check what the new weapon actually does. The effect of an attack with a longsword does not have an impact on what happens when I attack with a net, maul, warhammer, or dagger or any other weapon. I don't assume they do the same thing just because they are all weapons. If you read the rules, you will see that each weapon explicitly states the effects it has on a successful attack roll. They don't all do 1d8 slashing just because they are weapons.

Also, all monsters in the game that can do an attack, consistently use the word "hit" to symbolize the effect of a successful attack roll and "+X to hit" to symbolize their modifier on the attack roll. Would you argue against this? If hit wouldn't have an intended usage in the rules, attacks on monster stat blocks would be written in a very stupid way since they otherwise are limited to using terms with specific meaning in the game to explain the mechanics of the creature. Stat blocks are not the place for flavor text. It is a condensed section explaining the rules for that specific creature. Everything on them, except a few words to complete sentences, have specific meaning within the game. Would you say that they could apply their "to hit" modifier on the shove contest since it, according to you, hits? If hit didn't have a specific meaning in the game, monster stat blocks wouldn't use "to hit" to mean bonus on attack roll.

[Christew]

At no point am I comparing the first part of what I said (Attack and Shove both hitting) with the second (sword and hammer both doing damage). It’s two examples used to show that in 5e changing a “cause” doesn’t necessarily change an “effect” as Fniss was arguing.
Except that changing the cause (weapon type) does change the effect (damage type), further illustrating that it is a poor analogy. It only works if you selectively apply both logic and linguistics. I maintain my disapproval.


Okay, so then you agree it’s not a game term, it appears. If it’s not a game term (that is, it doesn’t have a special meaning outside of its common English meaning in the rules of 5e), then there is nothing wrong with saying smashing your shield into someone else with enough force to knock them Prone is a hit. And we know a Shove is an Attack based on the explicit RAW.

Therefore, it’s legitimate to say smashing your shield into someone else with enough force to knock them Prone is an Attack that hits. And that it fulfilles the two requirements of Hex: a) that it’s an Attack; and b) that it hits.
Nope. Feel free to ask me if I agree, but please don't tell me or others that I agree.

As stated earlier, I think that your stance is a possible interpretation of the rules as written. I do not think it passes muster as a reasonable interpretation. The shove rules don't say anything about a shield, let alone that a contested ability check is describing "smashing your shield into someone else with enough force to knock them to the ground."

[RSP]

I never said two causes couldn't have the same effect. Just that, if you replace the cause, you cannot expect the result to stay the same.

And yet I showed you can change the cause (a successful Attack with a longsword changed to successful Attack with a warhammer) and expect the result to stay the same (a d8 Damage Roll in either case).





Also, all monsters in the game that can do an attack, consistently use the word "hit" to symbolize the effect of a successful attack roll and "+X to hit" to symbolize their modifier on the attack roll. Would you argue against this?[

I haven’t read over ever monster’s stat block so I’ll take your word on it.



If hit wouldn't have an intended usage in the rules, attacks on monster stat blocks would be written in a very stupid way since they otherwise are limited to using terms with specific meaning in the game to explain the mechanics of the creature.

Hit does have an intended usage in the rules: it’s common English meaning.



Stat blocks are not the place for flavor text. It is a condensed section explaining the rules for that specific creature. Everything on them, except a few words to complete sentences, have specific meaning within the game. Would you say that they could apply their "to hit" modifier on the shove contest since it, according to you, hits? If hit didn't have a specific meaning in the game, monster stat blocks wouldn't use "to hit" to mean bonus on attack roll.

Monster stat blocks give a special game term to how “hit” is used. From the basic rules chapter on Monsters: “This chapter presents a wide selection of ready-to-play monsters—a sample of what can be found in the Monster Manual. Each description uses a standardized format that clearly explains the monster’s capabilities. Guidelines for understanding the information found in a monster’s statistics are given below.”

This tells us that the monster stat blocks have a “standardized format” and they’re going to explain how to “understand the information ina monster’s stat block” in the following rules.

Now the rules for what you’re referring to on “Hit” are here:

“Hit. Any damage dealt or other effects that occur as
a result of an attack hitting a target are described after the “Hit” notation. You have the option of taking average damage or rolling the damage; for this reason, both the average damage and the die expression are presented.
Miss. If an attack has an effect that occurs on a miss, that information is presented after the “Miss:” notation.”

See here how this lays out an alternate, non-common English meaning to the word “Hit”? Compare this to what you’re referring to when hit is used in the combat section. Hit in the combat chapter uses its common English meaning. But here, they explicitly tell us that when reading monster’s stat blocks to use this definition.

[RSP]

Except that changing the cause (weapon type) does change the effect (damage type), further illustrating that it is a poor analogy. It only works if you selectively apply both logic and linguistics. I maintain my disapproval.

I agree that perception matters. Other factors do as well. But if not fighting a creature with resistances, the type doesn’t matter; so 5 slashing damage or 5 bludgeoning damage doesn’t matter. The effect is 5 HPs removed.

Also, reserve all the disapproval you want: your approval isn’t what I’m going for. But for whatever it’s worth, your disapproval with my post is noted.



Nope. Feel free to ask me if I agree, but please don't tell me or others that I agree.

As stated earlier, I think that your stance is a possible interpretation of the rules as written. I do not think it passes muster as a reasonable interpretation. The shove rules don't say anything about a shield, let alone that a contested ability check is describing "smashing your shield into someone else with enough force to knock them to the ground."

Shove rules wouldn’t say anything about the Shield Master feat, because they’re two different things.

[Tanarii]

No, RAI is the intention of the designers. To understand the intention of what is written (or often what want but was intended to be) you need to have actually designed the system.



Agreed save for the developer, as by the definition of RAI the designer intent is what matters and each individual (excluding them) is equally valid in coming up with their own interpretations for what the designers meant when they wrote something. The designers themselves already know what they meant and can speak with 100% accuracy to the RAI.This is, and has been multiple times in the course of 5e alone, provably wrong. At least with Mearls and Crawford.

[ProsecutorGodot]

This is, and has been multiple times in the course of 5e alone, provably wrong. At least with Mearls and Crawford.

Not really proven wrong, but changed, and there are very few examples of it.

[Christew]

Shove rules wouldn’t say anything about the Shield Master feat, because they’re two different things.
Shield Master just says shove. Are you implying that you can "hit" with a shove if you have Shield Master, but cannot "hit" with a shove if you don't? That makes even less sense.

[RSP]

Shield Master just says shove. Are you implying that you can "hit" with a shove if you have Shield Master, but cannot "hit" with a shove if you don't? That makes even less sense.

Away from book, but if the internet is correct, it says more than just “shove”, it says:

“If you take the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to try to shove a creature within 5 feet of you with your shield.

Hence “hitting with your shield.”

This argument started specifically based on Shield Master and the use of the feat to shove an enemy, hence, again, using the shield to hit someone and knock them down.

I don’t mind discussing the RAW of Shove by itself, but this side thread so far as I’ve been discussing it, is about, specifically, Shield Master’s Shove.

[Christew]

Away from book, but if the internet is correct, it says more than just “shove”, it says:

“If you take the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to try to shove a creature within 5 feet of you with your shield.

Hence “hitting with your shield.”

This argument started specifically based on Shield Master and the use of the feat to shove an enemy, hence, again, using the shield to hit someone and knock them down.

I don’t mind discussing the RAW of Shove by itself, but this side thread so far as I’ve been discussing it, is about, specifically, Shield Master’s Shove.
Right. The verb there is "shove," which would refer you back to the rules on shoving a creature, not "hit" and certainly not "smash." So is it your contention that the words "with your shield" is what is making this a "hit?"

[RSP]

Right. The verb there is "shove," which would refer you back to the rules on shoving a creature, not "hit" and certainly not "smash." So is it your contention that the words "with your shield" is what is making this a "hit?"

If you Shove “with your shield”, I interpret that as using your shield to Shove, yes.

If a Shove is successful, and uses such force that, upon contact with the targeted opponent, that opponent is knocked Prone or is pushed back 5’; yes, I’d call that a hit with a shield. (I took out the use of “your” in this case as I’m referring to the general rules and not anything particular to me or my table’s rulings; whereas the first part of this post was responding to your question of what I, specifically, think of the words in your quotes).

Say another Player stepped away to go to the bathroom during my character’s turn. Upon return, they ask what happened as it’s now their turn. I would have no problem with an answer of “I attacked the elf, and hit it with my shield. It’s still alive and currently prone.”

[Fnissalot]

If you Shove “with your shield”, I interpret that as using your shield to Shove, yes.

If a Shove is successful, and uses such force that, upon contact with the targeted opponent, that opponent is knocked Prone or is pushed back 5’; yes, I’d call that a hit with a shield. (I took out the use of “your” in this case as I’m referring to the general rules and not anything particular to me or my table’s rulings; whereas the first part of this post was responding to your question of what I, specifically, think of the words in your quotes).

Say another Player stepped away to go to the bathroom during my character’s turn. Upon return, they ask what happened as it’s now their turn. I would have no problem with an answer of “I attacked the elf, and hit it with my shield. It’s still alive and currently prone.”

If you then freely substitute shoves with a shield as a hit, would you allow someone with the feat, use a bonus action and a shield as a improvised weapon attack? You already come to the conclusion that it is an attack that can hit so pushing it that much further is not much?

Edit: "If you said that, I would assume you used that you used the shield as a improvised weapon to deal damage with it.

[RSP]

If you then freely substitute shoves with a shield as a hit, would you allow someone with the feat, use a bonus action and a shield as a improvised weapon attack? You already come to the conclusion that it is an attack that can hit so pushing it that much further is not much?

Edit: "If you said that, I would assume you used that you used the shield as a improvised weapon to deal damage with it.

You asked a previous question on “hit” used in monster stat blocks that I gave a fair in-depth answer on. Not sure why that’s being ignored.

I don’t allow BA attacks with a shield, outside of the Shield Master Shove. I’m not sure why you would draw the conclusion of Shoving with a shield using the Shield Master feat as being equal to making BA Improvised Weapon Attacks.

I’m not sure what you mean in your edit.

[Fnissalot]

You asked a previous question on “hit” used in monster stat blocks that I gave a fair in-depth answer on. Not sure why that’s being ignored.

I don’t allow BA attacks with a shield, outside of the Shield Master Shove. I’m not sure why you would draw the conclusion of Shoving with a shield using the Shield Master feat as being equal to making BA Improvised Weapon Attacks.

I’m not sure what you mean in your edit.

Sorry i missed your last post, skimmed over the thread as the weekend has been rough and I'm rather tired.

I didn't assume you would, just curious.

My edit was towards the scenario you set up. If I went to the toilet, when I come back, I would misunderstand your point.


And yet I showed you can change the cause (a successful Attack with a longsword changed to successful Attack with a warhammer) and expect the result to stay the same (a d8 Damage Roll in either case).

You expect the roll to stay the same since both alternatives explicitly state what each of them do, not because one of them says one thing and you infer that the other says the same.



I haven’t read over ever monster’s stat block so I’ll take your word on it.

Hit does have an intended usage in the rules: it’s common English meaning.

Monster stat blocks give a special game term to how “hit” is used. From the basic rules chapter on Monsters: “This chapter presents a wide selection of ready-to-play monsters—a sample of what can be found in the Monster Manual. Each description uses a standardized format that clearly explains the monster’s capabilities. Guidelines for understanding the information found in a monster’s statistics are given below.”

This tells us that the monster stat blocks have a “standardized format” and they’re going to explain how to “understand the information ina monster’s stat block” in the following rules.

Now the rules for what you’re referring to on “Hit” are here:

“Hit. Any damage dealt or other effects that occur as a result of an attack hitting a target are described after the “Hit” notation. You have the option of taking average damage or rolling the damage; for this reason, both the average damage and the die expression are presented.
Miss. If an attack has an effect that occurs on a miss, that information is presented after the “Miss:” notation.”

See here how this lays out an alternate, non-common English meaning to the word “Hit”? Compare this to what you’re referring to when hit is used in the combat section. Hit in the combat chapter uses its common English meaning. But here, they explicitly tell us that when reading monster’s stat blocks to use this definition.

Cool! I missed that definition when skimming through the monster manual. But I am not sure why you argue this only applies to the monster stat blocks? Most of the other terms they define is consistent with their uses in the rest of the game. On the other hand, so terms can now be contextually dependent? If they can be the use of "hit" in the rules for long jump and magic missile has nothing to do with attacks since neither of those to are attacks. If you argue that "hit" has a special meaning in the context of monster stat blocks, it should also have a special meaning in the context of attacks. Both monsters and player characters have the base set rules for attacking; make an attack roll with the to hit modifier. If the attack roll hits, do what it says on the on hit of that attack. If shoves would hit, it would say something like "on a hit, either push prone or pushes them 5 feet" or "instead of using an attack roll to determine if the attack hits, you do a contested ability check" to keep the wording consistent.

[Kyutaru]

Cool! I missed that definition when skimming through the monster manual.
It's not a definition though. Nothing is being defined there, it even uses the very word in the same sentence twice. It's a reference. It's akin to me saying the following:

Stance. Any clarifications regarding my position will be stated here.

Response. If I feel the need to address a subject I will do it here.

Hit and Miss in the monster manual are not defined. They are keywords that indicate the significance of the information that follows, in this case being that after the "Hit" designation you will find information pertaining to damage or effects. Note that they say these damage or effects descriptions pertain to the result of an attack that hits, meaning you will only find Hit/Miss labels on attacks.

[Fnissalot]

It's not a definition though. Nothing is being defined there, it even uses the very word in the same sentence twice. It's a reference. It's akin to me saying the following:

Stance. Any clarifications regarding my position will be stated here.

Response. If I feel the need to address a subject I will do it here.

Hit and Miss in the monster manual are not defined. They are keywords that indicate the significance of the information that follows, in this case being that after the "Hit" designation you will find information pertaining to damage or effects. Note that they say these damage or effects descriptions pertain to the result of an attack that hits, meaning you will only find Hit/Miss labels on attacks.
Good point!
And they have "to hit" as the way to clarify what the bonuses to attack rolls are.

[RSP]

Cool! I missed that definition when skimming through the monster manual..


It's not a definition though.
...Hit and Miss in the monster manual are not defined.


Good point!
And they have "to hit" as the way to clarify what the bonuses to attack rolls are.

Wrong. It is a definition, which the rules explicitly tell us has a new way of being used. Again, from the RAW:

“This chapter presents a wide selection of ready-to-play monsters—a sample of what can be found in the Monster Manual. Each description uses a standardized format that clearly explains the monster’s capabilities. Guidelines for understanding the information found in a monster’s statistics are given below.”

This tells us they’re explaining the “guidelines” to “understand” “standardized format” of the information found for monster stat blocks. This tells us the information is for monster stat blocks, not the rest of the rules.

“Hit. Any damage dealt or other effects that occur as a result of an attack hitting a target are described after the “Hit” notation. You have the option of taking average damage or rolling the damage; for this reason, both the average damage and the die expression are presented.

Miss. If an attack has an effect that occurs on a miss, that information is presented after the “Miss:” notation”

This tells us that what Fniss has previously asked about here:



Also, all monsters in the game that can do an attack, consistently use the word "hit" to symbolize the effect of a successful attack roll and "+X to hit" to symbolize their modifier on the attack roll. Would you argue against this? If hit wouldn't have an intended usage in the rules, attacks on monster stat blocks would be written in a very stupid way since they otherwise are limited to using terms with specific meaning in the game to explain the mechanics of the creature. Stat blocks are not the place for flavor text. It is a condensed section explaining the rules for that specific creature. Everything on them, except a few words to complete sentences, have specific meaning within the game. Would you say that they could apply their "to hit" modifier on the shove contest since it, according to you, hits? If hit didn't have a specific meaning in the game, monster stat blocks wouldn't use "to hit" to mean bonus on attack roll.

What Fniss is asking about is the use of the “Hit notation” in the monster stat blocks. That is a new use for “Hit”.

As Fniss pointed out, it doesn’t make sense in English to say “Hit: 19 (2d10 + 8) piercing damage plus 7 (2d6) fire damage.”

So we refer back to the rules that tell us how to read, specifically, monster stat blocks, which tells us about the “Hit” notation and what it means: it’s a description of the effect of an attack that hits its target.

I’m not sure why that’s not the rules describing what they mean when they use the “Hit” notation, and, therefore, not a definition.

[Christew]

Say another Player stepped away to go to the bathroom during my character’s turn. Upon return, they ask what happened as it’s now their turn. I would have no problem with an answer of “I attacked the elf, and hit it with my shield. It’s still alive and currently prone.”
If you told me that you hit an elf with a shield, I would assume that you made an improvised weapon attack not a shove.

[RSP]

If you told me that you hit an elf with a shield, I would assume that you made an improvised weapon attack not a shove.

What impact does that assumption have on the RAW?

[Christew]

What impact does that assumption have on the RAW?
One could ask the same of your use of the hypothetical anecdote in the first place.

[RSP]

One could ask the same of your use of the hypothetical anecdote in the first place.

Well, in this case your assumption would have been wrong. Shall we continue a discussion on your assumptions? I’m not sure it’s an interesting enough topic to continue my participation in, but I’ll see how it goes.

[Amdy_vill]

disagree with the monk. the damage is subject to a magic effect their for all damage is magic.

[Christew]

Well, in this case your assumption would have been wrong. Shall we continue a discussion on your assumptions? I’m not sure it’s an interesting enough topic to continue my participation in, but I’ll see how it goes.
Yes, because your wording was ambiguous. That is the point.

[RSP]

Yes, because your wording was ambiguous. That is the point.

No, it wasn’t. Your assumption was flawed.

In the example, the shield did hit the elf. You incorrectly made assumptions about what that meant, but the wording described, accurately, what occurred.

[Christew]

No, it wasn’t. Your assumption was flawed.

In the example, the shield did hit the elf. You incorrectly made assumptions about what that meant, but the wording described, accurately, what occurred.
The fact that your wording allows for unintended interpretations means it's ambiguous.

In the example, the elf was shoved with a shield. You are (and have been this entire thread) inserting the word "hit" in order to service your own tangential interpretation of RAW.

[RSP]

The fact that your wording allows for unintended interpretations means it's ambiguous.

In the example, the elf was shoved with a shield. You are (and have been this entire thread) inserting the word "hit" in order to service your own tangential interpretation of RAW.

The PCs shield did, in fact, hit the elf. You are assuming the existence of a definition of hit that doesn’t exist (a specific game mechanic definition outside of the monster stat block one); one that, if it existed, would mean the PC didn’t “hit” the elf with his shield, and that assumption led you to a false conclusion.

Don’t blame me for your bad assumption.

[Christew]

The PCs shield did, in fact, hit the elf. You are assuming the existence of a definition of hit that doesn’t exist (a specific game mechanic definition outside of the monster stat block one); one that, if it existed, would mean the PC didn’t “hit” the elf with his shield, and that assumption led you to a false conclusion.

Don’t blame me for your bad assumption.
Don't worry, I am only blaming you for your own assumptions.

The PCs shield made contact with the elf. Anything more than that (and the RAW description of shove mechanics) is a logical or linguistic assumption on your part.

[Fnissalot]

The PCs shield did, in fact, hit the elf. You are assuming the existence of a definition of hit that doesn’t exist (a specific game mechanic definition outside of the monster stat block one); one that, if it existed, would mean the PC didn’t “hit” the elf with his shield, and that assumption led you to a false conclusion.

Don’t blame me for your bad assumption.

The rules never states that a shove makes any contact at all. That is an assumption you have on part of how the rules are visualized. His assumption is not bad as it is the only thing that makes sense for the wording you used based on what is explicit in the rules. The rules gives a clear meaning to it in the context of an attack as one of the two results of an attack roll, which is as good a definition that you get from the rules, but you choose to ignore it. The monster manual usage builds on the same meaning and doesn't contradict it.

[RSP]

The rules never states that a shove makes any contact at all. That is an assumption you have on part of how the rules are visualized. His assumption is not bad as it is the only thing that makes sense for the wording you used based on what is explicit in the rules. The rules gives a clear meaning to it in the context of an attack as one of the two results of an attack roll, which is as good a definition that you get from the rules, but you choose to ignore it. The monster manual usage builds on the same meaning and doesn't contradict it.

No. The Monster Stat Block definition is explicitly only for monster stat blocks. Ignore it all you want, but that literally is what the description says.

If when you read “Guidelines for understanding the information found in a monster’s statistics are given below,” your take away is “oh, these guidelines are for the rules of Attack Rolls,” that’s on you.

The rules are very clear with what the “hit” notation is referring to: monster stat blocks alone.


Don't worry, I am only blaming you for your own assumptions.

The PCs shield made contact with the elf. Anything more than that (and the RAW description of shove mechanics) is a logical or linguistic assumption on your part.

Not correct. In the example used the PC’s shield did, in fact, hit the elf.

If that statement leads you to assume a certain mechanic took place that didn’t, that is, in fact, your faulty assumption.

You even stated it was your assumption, so I’m not sure why you’re back tracking now (other than to not discuss the facts of the RAW, of course).

[Fnissalot]

No. The Monster Stat Block definition is explicitly only for monster stat blocks. Ignore it all you want, but that literally is what the description says.

If when you read “Guidelines for understanding the information found in a monster’s statistics are given below,” your take away is “oh, these guidelines are for the rules of Attack Rolls,” that’s on you.

The rules are very clear with what the “hit” notation is referring to: monster stat blocks alone.

Technically, the word guidelines as it is used in English, never says anything about it being a definition. A guideline is an advice on how to do something, in this case understand monster stat blocks. For being very focused on the english meaning of things, you seem to have missed the difference between rules and guidelines. It also never state what a hit in the monster stat block intends more than that hit is used a as a label for "Any damage dealt or other effects that occur as a result of an attack hitting a target". It shows the reader where to look for the resulting effect when an attack hits the target and the rules for an attack hitting a target still says that it is a result of an attack roll. This does in no way infringe on the rules in the PHB. Also, there is still a definition of a hit in the combat rules, even if you ignore it since it is under the "wrong" header



Not correct. In the example used the PC’s shield did, in fact, hit the elf.

If that statement leads you to assume a certain mechanic took place that didn’t, that is, in fact, your faulty assumption.

You even stated it was your assumption, so I’m not sure why you’re back tracking now (other than to not discuss the facts of the RAW, of course).

Based on the rules, it didn't. You might argue that it did or say that it literally would need to do so, but it is not a fact nor explicit to the game and saying these are facts and correct is humbug since the facts in this case, are the games rules, where it is not a written as a fact but something you read between the lines which is not enough to make it correct. If it would be a fact, the rules would explicitly state that a successful shove is a hit.

Additionally, why would it be the listeners fault that the speaker is imprecise enough in their wordings to be misunderstood? That makes no sense at all. If I would take what you say as an insult, you would then argue that that would be my fault, not yours for saying what would hurt me?

[Christew]

Not correct. In the example used the PC’s shield did, in fact, hit the elf.

If that statement leads you to assume a certain mechanic took place that didn’t, that is, in fact, your faulty assumption.

You even stated it was your assumption, so I’m not sure why you’re back tracking now (other than to not discuss the facts of the RAW, of course).
If your language use points more clearly to an unintended meaning than your intended meaning, then it is poor language use.

[Kyutaru]

If your language use points more clearly to an unintended meaning than your intended meaning, then it is poor language use.

Or put another way, if the RAW of your argument doesn't match your RAI then your rule is written badly.

[RSP]

If your language use points more clearly to an unintended meaning than your intended meaning, then it is poor language use.

My meaning matched my words: the shield did, in fact, hit the elf.

Your steadfast hold to a faulty premise (hit having a non-common English meaning), is your stumbling block here.

[RSP]

...


I’ve repeatedly pointed to the RAW, and patiently answered your unrelated questions (such as do you allow a BA Improvised Weapon Attack with Shield Master feat).

I’m not interested in drawing this out just because you don’t want to focus on the facts.

I’ve pointed out that your so-called definition of “hit” is, in fact, just it being used in common English.

I’ve pointed out that you have, additionally, arbitrarily decided said “definition” only exists as RAW when used with the word “attack”.

I’ve shown how the PHB details legitimate examples of the above in its description of “the hit notation” and what it means; as well as how they show when to use that definition (in the monster stat blocks).

I’m assuming you’re not responding to those points because you cannot, and are asking irrelevant questions as a way to avoid their answers.

[Christew]

My meaning matched my words: the shield did, in fact, hit the elf.

Your steadfast hold to a faulty premise (hit having a non-common English meaning), is your stumbling block here.
So does initiating a grapple also proc on hit effects in your mind?

[RSP]

So does initiating a grapple also proc on hit effects in your mind?

Why are you concerned with what procs a hit in my mind? Is that what you want to discuss, my table rulings?

[Christew]

Why are you concerned with what procs a hit in my mind? Is that what you want to discuss, my table rulings?
You are not making your point understood so I am asking probing questions in order to attempt to assemble a more coherent interpretation.

In this particular case, both are special melee attacks. You say shoving a creature procs Hex by RAW. I am asking if you would also say grappling a creature procs Hex by RAW.

Establishing some kind of pattern would help me understand your point. Thus far, it seems like you came up with an idea and then have been selectively applying rules, definitions, and reasoning in order to make that idea fit RAW.

[RSP]

You are not making your point understood so I am asking probing questions in order to attempt to assemble a more coherent interpretation.

In this particular case, both are special melee attacks. You say shoving a creature procs Hex by RAW. I am asking if you would also say grappling a creature procs Hex by RAW.

Establishing some kind of pattern would help me understand your point. Thus far, it seems like you came up with an idea and then have been selectively applying rules, definitions, and reasoning in order to make that idea fit RAW.

I’ve made plenty of points you selectively respond to, while ignoring the majority.

Hitting someone with a shield, is, in fact, hitting someone with a shield. You say this is befuddling you because you assume it means an Attack Roll was made. Yet, one can hit someone with a shield and not have it be an Attack Roll, per the RAW.

You blame this misconception of yours on me, while the truth is it’s because you, apparently, have a definition of “hit” which doesn’t exist in the 5e RAW.

You don’t want to deal with those facts and instead want to talk about how I’d rule grappling.

Grappling, I suppose, would depend on how it was accomplished. I don’t see grabbing someone’s hand as a “hit”, but perhaps someone else does, or they see grappling as different than that.

If you want to argue if grappling is a hit or not, go ahead; I may or may not participate.

Do you want to continue with the discussion on Shield Master and hitting someone with a shield; or do you have more unrelated questions?

[OvisCaedo]

Ah, the wonders of a system pretending to be written using common sense english but actually still being written in bizarre legalese. Reminds me of "melee weapon attack" and "attack with a melee weapon" being written as having distinctly different meanings even if they usually overlap. This is actually the first time I think I've seen argument over whether or not "hit" is a specific legal term or not. I guess it doesn't come up often since "attack" is generally accepted as one, despite any common sense/plain language definition of it CERTAINLY including deliberately injuring someone with homing missiles or an explosion.

[Christew]

This is actually the first time I think I've seen argument over whether or not "hit" is a specific legal term or not.
Indeed. It was the novelty that got me involved initially.


Do you want to continue with the discussion on Shield Master and hitting someone with a shield; or do you have more unrelated questions?
I think I have done my due diligence on trying to draw forth something more worthwhile than a repeated unsubstantiated claim from you. Happy whatever it is you are trying to accomplish.

[Kuu Lightwing]

Huh, 8 pages for this, I'm surprised that this simple question caused so much debating. But, at the same time I'm even more surprised by Crawford's ruling, and to be fair I'm not convinced that this is "we intended for it to work this way" as opposed to "oh, I guess it works that way", but that's a guess, and isn't very important.

My personal take, derived from the text of hunter's mark would be the following: "Until the spell ends, you deal an extra 1d6 damage to the target whenever you hit it with a weapon attack"
First of all, actor is specified: you deal extra damage, so I'm inclined to believe that it's not the spell that deals damage, but you do. Next, the type of damage is not specified, so I assume that it's the same damage type as your weapon damage. Basically I view this spell as a "debuff" that causes you to do more damage to the creature.

Looking at similar effects:

- Snek Attack: "Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an Attack if you have advantage on the Attack roll. The Attack must use a Finesse or a ranged weapon." - you are the actor, damage type not specified. Very close to Hunter's Mark wording.
- Hex: "Until the spell ends, you deal an extra 1d6 necrotic damage to the target whenever you hit it with an attack." - you are the actor, but it also specifies the damage type.
- Divine Smite: "You can expend one spell slot to deal radiant damage to the target, in addition to the weapon's damage." - again, you are the actor, but it also says that the damage is "in addition to the weapon's damage" separating Divine Smite and weapon damage.
- Improved Divine Smite: "Whenever you hit a creature with a melee weapon, the creature takes an extra 1d8 radiant damage." - no actor at all, the creature just takes extra damage.
- Colossus Slayer: "When you hit a creature with a weapon Attack, the creature takes an extra 1d8 damage if it’s below its hit point maximum. You can deal this extra damage only once per turn." - No actor at all, but the additional restriction uses uses a different wording and suggests that you are the actor instead.
- Flametongue: "While the sword is ablaze, it deals an extra 2d6 fire damage to any target it hits." - the weapon is the actor this time. Damage type is specified.
- Sun Blade: "When you hit an Undead with it, that target takes an extra 1d8 radiant damage." - no actor again.

Wording is a bit out of whack honestly, and I'd prefer it to be uniform, but that's 5e we're talking about. Still though, given that Hunter's mark has very close wording to Sneak Attack, I'd say they should be ruled similarly.

[diplomancer]

Huh, 8 pages for this, I'm surprised that this simple question caused so much debating. But, at the same time I'm even more surprised by Crawford's ruling, and to be fair I'm not convinced that this is "we intended for it to work this way" as opposed to "oh, I guess it works that way", but that's a guess, and isn't very important.

My personal take, derived from the text of hunter's mark would be the following: "Until the spell ends, you deal an extra 1d6 damage to the target whenever you hit it with a weapon attack"
First of all, actor is specified: you deal extra damage, so I'm inclined to believe that it's not the spell that deals damage, but you do. Next, the type of damage is not specified, so I assume that it's the same damage type as your weapon damage. Basically I view this spell as a "debuff" that causes you to do more damage to the creature.

Looking at similar effects:

- Snek Attack: "Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an Attack if you have advantage on the Attack roll. The Attack must use a Finesse or a ranged weapon." - you are the actor, damage type not specified. Very close to Hunter's Mark wording.
- Hex: "Until the spell ends, you deal an extra 1d6 necrotic damage to the target whenever you hit it with an attack." - you are the actor, but it also specifies the damage type.
- Divine Smite: "You can expend one spell slot to deal radiant damage to the target, in addition to the weapon's damage." - again, you are the actor, but it also says that the damage is "in addition to the weapon's damage" separating Divine Smite and weapon damage.
- Improved Divine Smite: "Whenever you hit a creature with a melee weapon, the creature takes an extra 1d8 radiant damage." - no actor at all, the creature just takes extra damage.
- Colossus Slayer: "When you hit a creature with a weapon Attack, the creature takes an extra 1d8 damage if it’s below its hit point maximum. You can deal this extra damage only once per turn." - No actor at all, but the additional restriction uses uses a different wording and suggests that you are the actor instead.
- Flametongue: "While the sword is ablaze, it deals an extra 2d6 fire damage to any target it hits." - the weapon is the actor this time. Damage type is specified.
- Sun Blade: "When you hit an Undead with it, that target takes an extra 1d8 radiant damage." - no actor again.

Wording is a bit out of whack honestly, and I'd prefer it to be uniform, but that's 5e we're talking about. Still though, given that Hunter's mark has very close wording to Sneak Attack, I'd say they should be ruled similarly.

It IS the same damage type of the weapon, but the source is magical, a spell. That's why I'm always insisting that, RAW, there is no such thing as "magical piercing damage".

We have 8 hit points of piercing damage. 2 of them come from the weapon (not magical, target immune), 3 of them come from the attacker's dexterity (not magical, target immune), 3 of them come from Hunter's Mark (magical, target not immune).

Which just made me realize; a more interesting question would be the extra damage from Enlarge. I would rule it wouldn't work against immunities, but there's a good case for it.

[Kuu Lightwing]

It IS the same damage type of the weapon, but the source is magical, a spell. That's why I'm always insisting that, RAW, there is no such thing as "magical piercing damage".

We have 8 hit points of piercing damage. 2 of them come from the weapon (not magical, target immune), 3 of them come from the attacker's dexterity (not magical, target immune), 3 of them come from Hunter's Mark (magical, target not immune).

Which just made me realize; a more interesting question would be the extra damage from Enlarge. I would rule it wouldn't work against immunities, but there's a good case for it.

That's the thing though, let's take a Werewolf.

- Damage Immunities Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing From Nonmagical Attacks Not Made With Silvered Weapons

So, immunity concerns attacks, what damage type they have, and what they were made with. The only part that asks whether it's magical or not - is attack itself. Hunter's mark itself is not an attack, so you can't treat it separately from the weapon attack to determine if the attack is magical or not.
So, if it's Piercing damage (questionable?) from Non-magical attack (attack with the bow is nonmagical for sure) not made with silvered weapon (it is not), then target is immune to said damage.

So the only part where you can argue - is the damage type, cause it's not specified. But if we rule that it's not in fact piercing damage, then Sneak Attack that uses pretty much the same wording, and you shall allow it as well.

[diplomancer]

That's the thing though, let's take a Werewolf.

- Damage Immunities Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing From Nonmagical Attacks Not Made With Silvered Weapons

So, immunity concerns attacks, what damage type they have, and what they were made with. The only part that asks whether it's magical or not - is attack itself. Hunter's mark itself is not an attack, so you can't treat it separately from the weapon attack to determine if the attack is magical or not.
So, if it's Piercing damage (questionable?) from Non-magical attack (attack with the bow is nonmagical for sure) not made with silvered weapon (it is not), then target is immune to said damage.

So the only part where you can argue - is the damage type, cause it's not specified. But if we rule that it's not in fact piercing damage, then Sneak Attack that uses pretty much the same wording, and you shall allow it as well.

The damage is not from the attack (though the attack is a pre-condition for it), but from the spell.

[Kyutaru]

The damage is not from the attack (though the attack is a pre-condition for it), but from the spell.
Though that's like saying the damage taken from a Bestow Curse allowing you to hit your target "is from the spell" and therefore should be magical. Hunter's Mark by how it reads does not trigger a proc effect for explosive damage when an enemy hits the magic bullseye. It simply makes the enemy take extra damage from your targets. It's inflicting a form of vulnerability.

[Tanarii]

The damage is not from the attack (though the attack is a pre-condition for it), but from the spell.
I don't really buy this line of argument. It's definitely possible to parse things that way, but it's like saying "the damage is not from the attack, it's from the sneak attack."

[Keltest]

I don't really buy this line of argument. It's definitely possible to parse things that way, but it's like saying "the damage is not from the attack, it's from the sneak attack."

I think the distinction is meaningful in the case of spells or other magics adding effects to attacks. Sneak Attack is just "your weapon, but more" so you arent really going to run into a situation where you have to meaningfully separate them ever. But if there was something immune to sneak attack, or that otherwise affected it differently, it would have meaning for that as well.

[Kuu Lightwing]

The damage is not from the attack (though the attack is a pre-condition for it), but from the spell.

Again, it is the same wording as Sneak Attack. If this extra damage is not from the attack, then Sneak Attack damage should be the same, which is a whole new can of worms.

Edit: Wow, so many swordsages today :D

[Kyutaru]

Sneak Attack is just "your weapon, but more"
Mmm, kind of disagree there. Sneak attack is a flat bonus independent of weapon damage. It's general usage is to reflect hitting vital organs and vulnerable locations on the enemy. It doesn't matter if your liver gets stabbed by a dagger or a greatsword, you have a punctured liver. Hunter's Mark seems to be just a very weak sneak attack for well-placed arrow shots on a marked target through magical guidance. It makes the target take extra damage from your weapon.

[Kuu Lightwing]

Yes. I also don't see why spell can't also make it "weapon attack but more". A spell can transform me into T-Rex and make me deal a lot of damage, but that doesn't make said T-Rex's attacks magical, even though they literally come from the spell. I can equip a Belt of Giant Strength and become stronger and deal more damage that way, but does that make the extra damage magical? I don't think so.

[RSP]

I think I have done my due diligence on trying to draw forth something more worthwhile than a repeated unsubstantiated claim from you. Happy whatever it is you are trying to accomplish.

To me, it seems you ignore valid points while asking unrelated questions in an attempt to distract from said valid points.

What claim am I repeating that is “unsubstantiated”?

[Christew]

To me, it seems you ignore valid points while asking unrelated questions in an attempt to distract from said valid points.

What claim am I repeating that is “unsubstantiated”?
Apologies if I was unclear. I no longer find it a worthy use of my time to discourse with you.

[RSP]

Apologies if I was unclear. I no longer find it a worthy use of my time to discourse with you.

Not sure how “this is unsubstantiated” means that. It seems like you just wanted to take shots at me, and then wash your hands of your previous statements, but fair enough.