Results 91 to 120 of 224
Thread: extra + 0?
-
2020-08-09, 07:50 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2014
-
2020-08-09, 07:53 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2016
Re: extra + 0?
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.
-
2020-08-09, 08:03 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2016
Re: extra + 0?
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.
5e doesn’t have touch AC, unless I’m missing something.Last edited by RSP; 2020-08-09 at 08:03 AM.
-
2020-08-09, 09:10 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2017
- Location
- Montevarchi, Italy
- Gender
Re: extra + 0?
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.
-
2020-08-09, 09:39 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2018
Re: extra + 0?
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.
Originally Posted by Rsp29a
Originally Posted by Rsp29a
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.
-
2020-08-09, 10:11 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2015
Re: extra + 0?
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.
5e doesn't, and that's important, because you can take damage to hit points without being struck.Last edited by Tanarii; 2020-08-09 at 10:12 AM.
-
2020-08-09, 10:50 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2014
-
2020-08-09, 10:53 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2015
Re: extra + 0?
-
2020-08-09, 07:59 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2016
Re: extra + 0?
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
Correct.
Incorrect. The PHB uses hit in it’s common English meaning. See above for the reasoning behind this.Last edited by truemane; 2020-08-12 at 07:22 AM. Reason: Scrubbed
-
2020-08-09, 08:30 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2007
- Location
- Dallas
Re: extra + 0?
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.
-
2020-08-09, 08:42 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2017
- Location
- Montevarchi, Italy
- Gender
Re: extra + 0?
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.
-
2020-08-09, 09:04 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2017
Re: extra + 0?
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.
-
2020-08-09, 09:16 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2017
- Location
- Montevarchi, Italy
- Gender
Re: extra + 0?
There is no functional difference, but "magical piercing damage" is improper wording.
-
2020-08-09, 11:11 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2016
Re: extra + 0?
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.Last edited by RSP; 2020-08-09 at 11:34 PM.
-
2020-08-10, 01:40 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2018
Re: extra + 0?
{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.
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
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.
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. 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.
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.
No, this is not proof for that. This is not arguing for that "all swans are white" 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.
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.
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".
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.
" 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.Last edited by truemane; 2020-08-12 at 07:26 AM. Reason: Scrubbed
-
2020-08-10, 05:53 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2017
- Location
- Montevarchi, Italy
- Gender
Re: extra + 0?
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 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.
-
2020-08-10, 06:15 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2018
Re: extra + 0?
The pdf with official rule clarifications are here.
https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/sage-advice
-
2020-08-10, 06:47 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2016
-
2020-08-10, 07:02 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2017
- Location
- Montevarchi, Italy
- Gender
-
2020-08-10, 07:19 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2018
Re: extra + 0?
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.
-
2020-08-10, 07:27 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2018
Re: extra + 0?
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.
Thanks, and yes, I agree!Last edited by Fnissalot; 2020-08-10 at 07:38 AM.
-
2020-08-10, 07:40 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
- Location
- Grognardia
- Gender
Re: extra + 0?
Metamagic Mod: Closed for Review.
EDIT:
Metamagic Mod: Thread re-opened.Last edited by truemane; 2020-08-12 at 07:27 AM.
(Avatar by Cuthalion, who is great.)
-
2020-08-12, 11:24 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2016
Re: extra + 0?
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.
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 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.)
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’.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.Last edited by RSP; 2020-08-12 at 11:26 AM.
-
2020-08-12, 12:10 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2017
- Location
- Inner Palace, Holy Terra
- Gender
Re: extra + 0?
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.Last edited by LordCdrMilitant; 2020-08-12 at 12:12 PM.
Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades!
-
2020-08-12, 12:38 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2013
Re: extra + 0?
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.Last edited by diplomancer; 2020-08-12 at 12:39 PM.
-
2020-08-12, 01:00 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2017
- Location
- Inner Palace, Holy Terra
- Gender
Re: extra + 0?
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,
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.Last edited by LordCdrMilitant; 2020-08-12 at 01:01 PM.
Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades!
-
2020-08-12, 01:43 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2018
Re: extra + 0?
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?
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.Last edited by Christew; 2020-08-12 at 01:56 PM.
-
2020-08-12, 03:31 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2017
- Location
- Montevarchi, Italy
- Gender
Re: extra + 0?
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.
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.
-
2020-08-12, 03:55 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2004
- Location
Re: extra + 0?
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.Last edited by Snails; 2020-08-12 at 03:57 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!
-
2020-08-12, 04:12 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2017
- Location
- Montevarchi, Italy
- Gender
Re: extra + 0?
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.