New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 224

Thread: extra + 0?

  1. - Top - End - #91
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Daemon

    Join Date
    Oct 2014

    Default Re: extra + 0?

    Quote Originally Posted by ProsecutorGodot View Post
    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.
    Trolls will be blocked. Petrification works far better than fire and acid.

  2. - Top - End - #92
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Jun 2016

    Default Re: extra + 0?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fnissalot View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fnissalot View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fnissalot View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fnissalot View Post
    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.

  3. - Top - End - #93
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Jun 2016

    Default Re: extra + 0?

    Quote Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kyutaru View Post
    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.
    Last edited by RSP; 2020-08-09 at 08:03 AM.

  4. - Top - End - #94
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Valmark's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Montevarchi, Italy
    Gender
    Male

    Default 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.

  5. - Top - End - #95
    Orc in the Playground
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2018

    Default Re: extra + 0?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rsp29a View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rsp29a
    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:
    Quote Originally Posted by Rsp29a
    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.

  6. - Top - End - #96
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tanarii's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: extra + 0?

    Quote Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kyutaru View Post
    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.

  7. - Top - End - #97
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Daemon

    Join Date
    Oct 2014

    Default Re: extra + 0?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    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.
    Trolls will be blocked. Petrification works far better than fire and acid.

  8. - Top - End - #98
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tanarii's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: extra + 0?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kyutaru View Post
    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.

  9. - Top - End - #99
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Jun 2016

    Default Re: extra + 0?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fnissalot View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fnissalot View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fnissalot View Post
    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.”

    Quote Originally Posted by Valmark View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Valmark View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Valmark View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Valmark View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Valmark View Post
    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.
    Last edited by truemane; 2020-08-12 at 07:22 AM. Reason: Scrubbed

  10. - Top - End - #100
    Orc in the Playground
     
    HalflingRogueGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Dallas

    Default Re: extra + 0?

    Quote Originally Posted by NaughtyTiger View Post
    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.

  11. - Top - End - #101
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Valmark's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Montevarchi, Italy
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: extra + 0?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rsp29a View Post
    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.

  12. - Top - End - #102
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2017

    Default 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.

  13. - Top - End - #103
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Valmark's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Montevarchi, Italy
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: extra + 0?

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

  14. - Top - End - #104
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Jun 2016

    Default Re: extra + 0?

    Quote Originally Posted by Valmark View Post
    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:

    Quote Originally Posted by Valmark View Post
    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.
    Last edited by RSP; 2020-08-09 at 11:34 PM.

  15. - Top - End - #105
    Orc in the Playground
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2018

    Default Re: extra + 0?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rsp29a View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    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]
    Quote Originally Posted by Rsp29a View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rsp29a View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rsp29a View Post
    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. 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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rsp29a View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rsp29a View Post
    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" 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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rsp29a View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rsp29a View Post
    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".
    Quote Originally Posted by Rsp29a View Post
    [...]
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rsp29a View Post
    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.
    Last edited by truemane; 2020-08-12 at 07:26 AM. Reason: Scrubbed

  16. - Top - End - #106
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Valmark's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Montevarchi, Italy
    Gender
    Male

    Default 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.

  17. - Top - End - #107
    Orc in the Playground
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2018

    Default Re: extra + 0?

    Quote Originally Posted by Valmark View Post
    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.
    The pdf with official rule clarifications are here.
    https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/sage-advice

  18. - Top - End - #108
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Jun 2016

    Default Re: extra + 0?

    Quote Originally Posted by Valmark View Post
    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.

  19. - Top - End - #109
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Valmark's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Montevarchi, Italy
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: extra + 0?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rsp29a View Post
    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.

  20. - Top - End - #110
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Goblin

    Join Date
    Jul 2018

    Default Re: extra + 0?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fnissalot View Post
    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.

  21. - Top - End - #111
    Orc in the Playground
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2018

    Default Re: extra + 0?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rsp29a View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Christew View Post
    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!
    Last edited by Fnissalot; 2020-08-10 at 07:38 AM.

  22. - Top - End - #112
    Archmage in the Playground Moderator
     
    truemane's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Grognardia
    Gender
    Male

    Default 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.)

  23. - Top - End - #113
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Jun 2016

    Default Re: extra + 0?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fnissalot View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fnissalot View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fnissalot View Post
    [*]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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fnissalot View Post
    [*]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.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Fnissalot View Post
    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’.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fnissalot View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fnissalot View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fnissalot View Post
    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).

    Quote Originally Posted by Fnissalot View Post
    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fnissalot View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fnissalot View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fnissalot View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fnissalot View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fnissalot View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fnissalot View Post
    " 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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fnissalot View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Valmark View Post
    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.
    Last edited by RSP; 2020-08-12 at 11:26 AM.

  24. - Top - End - #114
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    LordCdrMilitant's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Inner Palace, Holy Terra
    Gender
    Female

    Default 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!

  25. - Top - End - #115
    Troll in the Playground
     
    RogueGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: extra + 0?

    Quote Originally Posted by LordCdrMilitant View Post
    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.
    Last edited by diplomancer; 2020-08-12 at 12:39 PM.

  26. - Top - End - #116
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    LordCdrMilitant's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Inner Palace, Holy Terra
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: extra + 0?

    Quote Originally Posted by diplomancer View Post
    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.
    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!

  27. - Top - End - #117
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Goblin

    Join Date
    Jul 2018

    Default Re: extra + 0?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rsp29a View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by LordCdrMilitant View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Christew; 2020-08-12 at 01:56 PM.

  28. - Top - End - #118
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Valmark's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Montevarchi, Italy
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: extra + 0?

    Quote Originally Posted by LordCdrMilitant View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Christew View Post
    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.

  29. - Top - End - #119
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location

    Default Re: extra + 0?

    Quote Originally Posted by Valmark View Post
    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.

  30. - Top - End - #120
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Valmark's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Montevarchi, Italy
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: extra + 0?

    Quote Originally Posted by Snails View Post
    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •