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.
@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.
The must was referring to forgoing advantage when using RA. The word must have no relation to using BS every time you use RA.
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.
If you give up advantage from RA in order to use BS, then you can use advantage from another source.
So, I was reading what I think is the final release for the barbarian. Here's what Reckless attack now says :
You can throw aside all concern for defense to attack with increased ferocity. When you make your first attack roll on your turn, you can decide to attack recklessly. Doing so gives you Advantage on attack rolls using Strength until the start of your next turn, but attack rolls against you have Advantage during that time.
"When you make your first attack on your turn, you can use RA." If you miss that first attack roll, then you cannot use RA for any other attacks that turn.
I would never use RA against a fighter, therefore no Frenzy and no Brutal strike. You're committing suicide either way. Oh wait, they gave you a get out of death free card. That is unless you are dead, dead. Then revive is your only option.
Frenzy is now a one and done feature. Again, if you miss your first attack it's no frenzy or BS on any other attacks because there's no RA. That's if you must use RA in order to use Frenzy and BS.
"When you make your first attack on your turn, you can use RA." If you miss that first attack roll, then you cannot use RA for any other attacks that turn.
RA is a decision you make before rolling to hit; there is no requirement that you hit.
"When you make your first attack on your turn, you can use RA." If you miss that first attack roll, then you cannot use RA for any other attacks that turn.
RA is a decision you make before rolling to hit; there is no requirement that you hit.
I did not say there was a requirement that you hit. I said if you miss, then you cannot use RA for any other attacks that turn or round even. Am I trying too hard to explain things? My OCD compels me to argue and over explain my reasoning. Also, I like to be right. The fact that I'm being told things I didn't say or am misinterpreted means somethings wrong. I've typed this before and haven't listened to myself. I have to stop with the forum.
I did not say there was a requirement that you hit. I said if you miss, then you cannot use RA for any other attacks that turn or round even. Am I trying too hard to explain things? My OCD compels me to argue and over explain my reasoning. Also, I like to be right. The fact that I'm being told things I didn't say or am misinterpreted means somethings wrong. I've typed this before and haven't listened to myself. I have to stop with the forum.
What does it mean to 'miss'? You must make the decision to use RA on the first attack of your turn, you cannot make a non-reckless attack and follow it with a reckless attack, but there is very little reason you would ever want to do so, because RA applies to all your attacks.
"When you make your first attack on your turn, you can use RA." If you miss that first attack roll, then you cannot use RA for any other attacks that turn.
RA is a decision you make before rolling to hit; there is no requirement that you hit.
I did not say there was a requirement that you hit. I said if you miss, then you cannot use RA for any other attacks that turn or round even. Am I trying too hard to explain things? My OCD compels me to argue and over explain my reasoning. Also, I like to be right. The fact that I'm being told things I didn't say or am misinterpreted means somethings wrong. I've typed this before and haven't listened to myself. I have to stop with the forum.
Actually, the way it is worded is the opposite. On your first attack, you choose whether to use RA (or not) before rolling. If you choose to do so, then, until the start of your next turn, the effects apply all attacks against you and to all your strength based attacks.
It is a constant effect once triggered, not something that relies on that first attack hitting.
You can throw aside all concern for defense to attack with increased ferocity. When you make your first attack roll on your turn, you can decide to attack recklessly. Doing so gives you Advantage on attack rolls using Strength until the start of your next turn, but attack rolls against you have Advantage during that time.
Nothing there says that it stops working if you miss on that first attack.
It is sometimes hard to follow what you're saying because you put your own text inside the quote boxes for other people's quotes. I've tried to edit this quote to fix that.
@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.
The must was referring to forgoing advantage when using RA. The word must have no relation to using BS every time you use RA.
If the word "can" were replaced with the word "must", it would say:
If you use Reckless Attack, you must forgo any Advantage on one Strength-based attack roll of your choice on your turn.
That's not what the feature is intended to do. The feature gives you the option of forgoing advantage on one attack and dealing extra damage with an extra effect.
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.
If you give up advantage from RA in order to use BS, then you can use advantage from another source.
No, you can't. That's why it says "forego any advantage on the attack".
Again, you either have advantage or you don't; you don't have multiple instances of advantage.
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
We are all in danger!
So, I was reading what I think is the final release for the barbarian. Here's what Reckless attack now says :
You can throw aside all concern for defense to attack with increased ferocity. When you make your first attack roll on your turn, you can decide to attack recklessly. Doing so gives you Advantage on attack rolls using Strength until the start of your next turn, but attack rolls against you have Advantage during that time.
"When you make your first attack on your turn, you can use RA." If you miss that first attack roll, then you cannot use RA for any other attacks that turn.
I would never use RA against a fighter, therefore no Frenzy and no Brutal strike. You're committing suicide either way. Oh wait, they gave you a get out of death free card. That is unless you are dead, dead. Then revive is your only option.
Frenzy is now a one and done feature. Again, if you miss your first attack it's no frenzy or BS on any other attacks because there's no RA. That's if you must use RA in order to use Frenzy and BS.
We are all in danger!
RA is a decision you make before rolling to hit; there is no requirement that you hit.
We are all in danger!
What does it mean to 'miss'? You must make the decision to use RA on the first attack of your turn, you cannot make a non-reckless attack and follow it with a reckless attack, but there is very little reason you would ever want to do so, because RA applies to all your attacks.
Actually, the way it is worded is the opposite. On your first attack, you choose whether to use RA (or not) before rolling. If you choose to do so, then, until the start of your next turn, the effects apply all attacks against you and to all your strength based attacks.
It is a constant effect once triggered, not something that relies on that first attack hitting.
It may be useful to actually cite the text here:
Nothing there says that it stops working if you miss on that first attack.
pronouns: he/she/they
It is sometimes hard to follow what you're saying because you put your own text inside the quote boxes for other people's quotes. I've tried to edit this quote to fix that.
If the word "can" were replaced with the word "must", it would say:
That's not what the feature is intended to do. The feature gives you the option of forgoing advantage on one attack and dealing extra damage with an extra effect.
No, you can't. That's why it says "forego any advantage on the attack".
Again, you either have advantage or you don't; you don't have multiple instances of advantage.
pronouns: he/she/they