Results 61 to 90 of 224
Thread: extra + 0?
-
2020-08-08, 12:33 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2013
- Gender
Re: extra + 0?
“Evil is evil. Lesser, greater, middling, it's all the same. Proportions are negotiated, boundaries blurred. I'm not a pious hermit, I haven't done only good in my life. But if I'm to choose between one evil and another, then I prefer not to choose at all.”
-
2020-08-08, 12:34 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2018
-
2020-08-08, 12:43 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2016
Re: extra + 0?
-
2020-08-08, 12:51 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2018
Re: extra + 0?
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. :)Last edited by Fnissalot; 2020-08-08 at 12:52 PM.
-
2020-08-08, 01:08 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2016
Re: extra + 0?
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.
-
2020-08-08, 01:11 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2013
- Gender
Re: extra + 0?
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.“Evil is evil. Lesser, greater, middling, it's all the same. Proportions are negotiated, boundaries blurred. I'm not a pious hermit, I haven't done only good in my life. But if I'm to choose between one evil and another, then I prefer not to choose at all.”
-
2020-08-08, 01:17 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2016
Re: extra + 0?
-
2020-08-08, 01:23 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2016
Re: extra + 0?
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.
-
2020-08-08, 01:33 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2018
Re: extra + 0?
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...-melee-attack/
-
2020-08-08, 01:42 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2016
Re: extra + 0?
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.”Last edited by RSP; 2020-08-08 at 01:49 PM.
-
2020-08-08, 01:55 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2013
- Gender
Re: extra + 0?
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.
“Evil is evil. Lesser, greater, middling, it's all the same. Proportions are negotiated, boundaries blurred. I'm not a pious hermit, I haven't done only good in my life. But if I'm to choose between one evil and another, then I prefer not to choose at all.”
-
2020-08-08, 02:10 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2016
-
2020-08-08, 02:19 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2013
- Gender
Re: extra + 0?
“Evil is evil. Lesser, greater, middling, it's all the same. Proportions are negotiated, boundaries blurred. I'm not a pious hermit, I haven't done only good in my life. But if I'm to choose between one evil and another, then I prefer not to choose at all.”
-
2020-08-08, 02:33 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2018
Re: extra + 0?
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.Last edited by Fnissalot; 2020-08-08 at 02:58 PM.
-
2020-08-08, 02:36 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2015
- Location
- Maine
- Gender
Re: extra + 0?
Hunters mark is an anomaly in terms of having no listed damage type so it's really needs updated wording.
what is the point of living if you can't deadlift?
All credit to the amazing avatar goes to thoroughlyS
-
2020-08-08, 05:35 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2016
Re: extra + 0?
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.
-
2020-08-08, 05:39 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2016
-
2020-08-08, 07:45 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2016
Re: extra + 0?
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)
-
2020-08-08, 08:00 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2016
-
2020-08-08, 10:51 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2016
-
2020-08-08, 10:58 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2016
-
2020-08-08, 11:17 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2015
Re: extra + 0?
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.
-
2020-08-08, 11:43 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2004
- Location
Re: extra + 0?
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 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.
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".Last edited by Snails; 2020-08-08 at 11:45 PM.
I owe Peelee 5 Quatloos. But I am going double or nothing that Durkon will be casting 8th level spells at the big finale.
I bet Goblin_Priest 5 quatloos that Xykon does not know RC has the phylactery at this point in the tale (#1139).
Using my Bardic skills I see the fate of Belkar...so close!
Using my Bardic skills I see the fate of goblinkind!
-
2020-08-08, 11:52 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2018
Re: extra + 0?
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.Last edited by Fnissalot; 2020-08-09 at 12:09 AM.
-
2020-08-08, 11:55 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2014
Re: extra + 0?
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!Trolls will be blocked. Petrification works far better than fire and acid.
-
2020-08-09, 12:57 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2018
Re: extra + 0?
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.
-
2020-08-09, 01:53 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2019
Re: extra + 0?
-
2020-08-09, 06:39 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2016
Re: extra + 0?
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.
-
2020-08-09, 07:17 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Location
- The Land of Cleves
- Gender
Re: extra + 0?
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.
Time travels in divers paces with divers persons.
—As You Like It, III:ii:328
Chronos's Unalliterative Skillmonkey Guide
Current Homebrew: 5th edition psionics
-
2020-08-09, 07:35 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2017
- Gender
Re: extra + 0?
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.