Level 9: Brutal Strike: "If you use Reckless attack, you can forgo any Advantage on one Strength-based attack roll of your choice on your turn. The chosen attack roll mustn’t have Disadvantage. If the chosen attack roll hits, the target takes an extra 1d10 damage of the same type dealt by the weapon or Unarmed Strike, and you can cause one Brutal Strike effect of your choice. You have the following effect options. You have to use RA if you want extra damage and access to the effects. If and can make another rule ambiguous. And any makes you think you have to give up every advantage you may have. I think they mean just the RA one. Does the advantage for every enemy go away as well?
You either have advantage or you don't; it's not possible to have multiple advantages at the same time.
"Forego any advantage on the attack" is worded specifically to mean that you if you use this, you don't have advantage on the attack, regardless of where that advantage might be coming from.
It does not remove the advantage that enemies have on attacking you, because it doesn't say that it does that.
Level 9: Brutal Strike: "If you use Reckless attack, you can forgo any Advantage on one Strength-based attack roll of your choice on your turn. The chosen attack roll mustn’t have Disadvantage. If the chosen attack roll hits, the target takes an extra 1d10 damage of the same type dealt by the weapon or Unarmed Strike, and you can cause one Brutal Strike effect of your choice. You have the following effect options. You have to use RA if you want extra damage and access to the effects. If and can make another rule ambiguous. And any makes you think you have to give up every advantage you may have. I think they mean just the RA one. Does the advantage for every enemy go away as well?
You either have advantage or you don't; it's not possible to have multiple advantages at the same time.
"Forego any advantage on the attack" is worded specifically to mean that you if you use this, you don't have advantage on the attack, regardless of where that advantage might be coming from.
It does not remove the advantage that enemies have on attacking you, because it doesn't say that it does that.
I think what he means is that you are in a situation where you are facing two different opponents. In this situation, you have, for whatever reason, you would have advantage against both of them if you chose to attack both (or clearly against one, if you chose to attack just that one). If you, via Brutal Strike and Reckless Attack, you give up advantage against one of those targets, doing the extra damage and, if you so choose, doing one Brutal Strike effect of your choice, do you lose advantage on the second one, should you choose to use a second available attack action to strike that second target.
I would say not. Actually, based on that wording, I would say you don't even give up advantage on any subsequent attacks you make that round on the first target, too, since it is "you can forgo any Advantage on one Strength-based attack roll,' i.e., just on that one roll.
Since this 2024 thread has been revived, I would say as Monk player, if I ever decided to dip into Barbarian , it would be for Rage. A Monk resistant to BPS? Oh yes! It's would be like those old school Kung Fu movies guys with the "iron skin". The extra damage is a bonus.
@wagnarokkr You are probably right in your interpretation. Absolutely no advantage to use Brutal strike. It says you can forego. In order for your opinion to work, it should say must. How about this? If you use reckless attack, you must forego every advantage from any source. Or, just, any advantage you gain from RA. If you forego the RA advantage, you can still use it from another source, I have complained many times about the wording of a lot of rules, feats, and spells. At this point I'd like clarification from sage advice, someone official, on this matter.
You are right about this fact. You are only allowed one instance of advantage and/or disadvantage no matter how many sources you draw from.
I can't find the SA email anymore. The 2 questions I sent in were ignored anyway. Supposedly, the new compendium will be fluid, and it won't take years to update. I can't post a question on twatter to, literally, anyone unless I pay. I would like a clarification. Is RA directly linked to the extra damage and effects of Brutal strike or not? I reread the Frenzy feature for berserkers, and it also appears to require RA. Am I being forced to use a feature that I hate? By forced I mean to gain extra damage and effects. It is a choice, obviously. Maybe I'm the only one who hates RA. In 2024 they were supposed to be leveling out the damage, a bit, for melee and spells. I could, in 2025, be taking 1 to 2 swings at a target, doing 2d6 damage and ending my turn. The added damage, without needing to use RA, would be nice. How many other features, across all classes, require the use of another feature? If RA isn't a prerequisite for BS and frenzy, then that would be way more 2024. If RA only gave advantage to the target on their turn. If foregoing advantage for BS meant not giving it to your enemies. I'm afraid barbarian is going backwards. At this point, I miss exhaustion.
Bottom line is this. If we all could just ask SA to clarify these questions, then this argument wouldn't be unnecessary. I just don't understand why they can't just tell us exactly what the rule means to them and then the DM can decide. A few extra or different words go a long way. The ambiguity is frustrating. Hopefully, the compendium will be fluid. We'll see how long it takes to answer. Someone needs to ask the question.
@wagnarokkr You are probably right in your interpretation. Absolutely no advantage to use Brutal strike. It says you can forego. In order for your opinion to work, it should say must. How about this? If you use reckless attack, you must forego every advantage from any source.
It says "can" because you don't have to use Brutal Strike if you don't want to. If it were worded the way you suggest, it would mean that you have to use Brutal Strike every time you use Reckless Attack, which is not the intent of this feature and would be needlessly limiting.
Many D&D abilities and features are structured in this "if X, you can Y" template; it's not unique to this feature and it's not ambiguous.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
pronouns: he/she/they
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You either have advantage or you don't; it's not possible to have multiple advantages at the same time.
"Forego any advantage on the attack" is worded specifically to mean that you if you use this, you don't have advantage on the attack, regardless of where that advantage might be coming from.
It does not remove the advantage that enemies have on attacking you, because it doesn't say that it does that.
pronouns: he/she/they
I think what he means is that you are in a situation where you are facing two different opponents. In this situation, you have, for whatever reason, you would have advantage against both of them if you chose to attack both (or clearly against one, if you chose to attack just that one). If you, via Brutal Strike and Reckless Attack, you give up advantage against one of those targets, doing the extra damage and, if you so choose, doing one Brutal Strike effect of your choice, do you lose advantage on the second one, should you choose to use a second available attack action to strike that second target.
I would say not. Actually, based on that wording, I would say you don't even give up advantage on any subsequent attacks you make that round on the first target, too, since it is "you can forgo any Advantage on one Strength-based attack roll,' i.e., just on that one roll.
That's correct, you only lose advantage on that one attack you're using Brutal Strike with, not any other attacks you might make.
pronouns: he/she/they
Since this 2024 thread has been revived, I would say as Monk player, if I ever decided to dip into Barbarian , it would be for Rage. A Monk resistant to BPS? Oh yes! It's would be like those old school Kung Fu movies guys with the "iron skin". The extra damage is a bonus.
@wagnarokkr You are probably right in your interpretation. Absolutely no advantage to use Brutal strike. It says you can forego. In order for your opinion to work, it should say must. How about this? If you use reckless attack, you must forego every advantage from any source. Or, just, any advantage you gain from RA. If you forego the RA advantage, you can still use it from another source, I have complained many times about the wording of a lot of rules, feats, and spells. At this point I'd like clarification from sage advice, someone official, on this matter.
You are right about this fact. You are only allowed one instance of advantage and/or disadvantage no matter how many sources you draw from.
I can't find the SA email anymore. The 2 questions I sent in were ignored anyway. Supposedly, the new compendium will be fluid, and it won't take years to update. I can't post a question on twatter to, literally, anyone unless I pay. I would like a clarification. Is RA directly linked to the extra damage and effects of Brutal strike or not? I reread the Frenzy feature for berserkers, and it also appears to require RA. Am I being forced to use a feature that I hate? By forced I mean to gain extra damage and effects. It is a choice, obviously. Maybe I'm the only one who hates RA. In 2024 they were supposed to be leveling out the damage, a bit, for melee and spells. I could, in 2025, be taking 1 to 2 swings at a target, doing 2d6 damage and ending my turn. The added damage, without needing to use RA, would be nice. How many other features, across all classes, require the use of another feature? If RA isn't a prerequisite for BS and frenzy, then that would be way more 2024. If RA only gave advantage to the target on their turn. If foregoing advantage for BS meant not giving it to your enemies. I'm afraid barbarian is going backwards. At this point, I miss exhaustion.
Bottom line is this. If we all could just ask SA to clarify these questions, then this argument wouldn't be unnecessary. I just don't understand why they can't just tell us exactly what the rule means to them and then the DM can decide. A few extra or different words go a long way. The ambiguity is frustrating. Hopefully, the compendium will be fluid. We'll see how long it takes to answer. Someone needs to ask the question.
We are all in danger!
It says "can" because you don't have to use Brutal Strike if you don't want to. If it were worded the way you suggest, it would mean that you have to use Brutal Strike every time you use Reckless Attack, which is not the intent of this feature and would be needlessly limiting.
Many D&D abilities and features are structured in this "if X, you can Y" template; it's not unique to this feature and it's not ambiguous.
pronouns: he/she/they