I am playing a 6th level Bloodhunter who was awarded a sword that does Lighting damage. I have the Rite of Flame and I was wondering if I could still use my rite on top of the electrical damage and if so, can someone post the page or the rule that states we can?
There's no general rule that forbids stacking damage bonuses on your attacks, and thus there's nothing to quote. Certain spells or class features might have restrictions; the Elemental Weapon spell requires a nonmagical weapon, so it won't work with your magical sword. Crimson Rite doesn't care if the weapon is magical or not.
I do not have a rule to quote, so instead I'll just give you my take on this.
Observation 1: All of the magical weapons that I've had the pleasure of looking at seem to only have 2 types of damage associated to them: their base bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage and whatever element or magic damage.
Observation 2: Every attack I've seen that has a third damage type has been due to attaching a new source of damage to the attack of the magical weapon: Holy Greatsword + Divine Smite + Thunderous Smite for example.
Observation 3: The added third element type adds damage to the attack, it does not change any properties of the weapon.
---
With those observations, and the way that Rites are explained, I would say that you do not get added bonuses to your damage. The way that Rites are explained is, in my opinion, the similar effect as enchanting an item with a magical property (such as lightning). It would seem to me that the Rite would supersede the natural elemental property of the weapon until it fades, changing the elemental property until then.
InquisitiveCoder brings up a point in that; because there is no definitive restriction, there is argument to making it additional elemental damage. That said, it would be best to run this by your DM,
Observation 2: Every attack I've seen that has a third damage type has been due to attaching a new attack to the attack of the magical weapon: Holy Greatsword + Divine Smite + Thunderous Smite for example.
What exactly do you mean by "attaching a new attack"? Neither Divine Smite or Thunderous Smite are attacks so it's not clear what distinction is being made here for those two features compared to others.
The way that Rites are explained is, in my opinion, the similar effect as enchanting an item with a magical property (such as lightning). It would seem to me that the Rite would supersede the natural elemental property of the weapon until it fades, changing the elemental property until then.
How does Crimson Rite differ from, say, a Cleric's Divine Strike? This sets a really bad precedent where Paladins, Clerics and Zealot Barbarians would lose the extra radiant damage they get on their attacks if they happen to have certain magic weapons.
By "Attaching a new attack" I mean it's adding something to the damage rolls for the weapon as a separate effect.
Holy Greatsword does 2d6 Slashing damage and (for sake of argument) 2d8 Radiant damage
Divine Smite does 2d8 damage. It's not part of the weapon's normal damage so it's "attached" to the damage of the attack
Thunderous Smite does 2d6 damage. It's not part of the weapon's normal damage so it's "attached" to the damage of the attack.
It made sense when I wrote it, I did not mean to suggest that it was an attack such as swinging the sword or casting a spell like Guiding Bolt.
---
As to the second part, you're correct it does set a precedent that certain weapons would effectively stop you from using those abilities. I recognized that by saying that you presented the argument that there is no definitive restriction in the description to say that it could not be done. It is a differing view and I didn't feel it was wrong, simply not my view, thus the "ask your DM" for their final say.
I don't think "ask your DM" is warranted here. I mean, of course, for every single question regarding D&D you should always ask your DM, even if that question is "can I play a Human Fighter?". Some rules are either vague enough, or houseruled often enough, that "ask your DM" is the best advice. In this case, though, I don't think there's a solid argument for vagueness. There is really nothing in the rules to indicate it should not stack. Moreover, the argument proposed by DMThac0 seems to support, rather than oppose, that conclusion: here we have a weapon with 2 types of damage (slashing/piercing/bludgeoning, plus lightning), an ability (crimson rites) that "attaches" a new source of damage to an existing weapon, which also does not change any properties of the weapon.
I do believe InquisitveCoder's first response answers the original question both succinctly and exhaustively, though: there is no general rule preventing it, and the items in question (the weapon, and the crimson rites ability) don't have any specific rules preventing it, either, so it should be allowed.
Divine Strike "infuse your weapon strikes with divine energy"
Crimson Rite: "imbue a single weapon with the elemental energy"
These two give the weapon a new property.
----
Divine Smite: "deal radiant damage to the target, in addition to the weapon's damage"
Thunderous Smite: "the attack deals an extra 2d6 thunder damage"
These two add a damage roll from a separate source.
----
There are two completely different mechanics going on here.
The first two are affecting the weapon's property, they are giving it an enchantment, just like enchanting a weapon to deal lightning damage. The only difference is that the lightning sword has a permanent effect unlike the two abilities which are semi-permanent. Crimson Rite and Divine Strike are the same mechanic they are changing the weapon's property. You take a mundane weapon, and from the time you use the ability until you change weapons or drop the ability, that weapon is now enchanted with that property. The damage becomes 1d6 slashing and XdX element for the life time of the ability or weapon. These I would not let stack
All of the Smites are single shot uses that do not affect the property of the weapon. The weapon is still going to be mundane, it does 1d6 slashing damage. After the spell is used it does 1d6 slashing damage. When the spell is used it does 1d6 slashing damage. There is no change to the weapon. It is a separate source of damage from the weapon. It's temporary and if you lose concentration, you may lose the damage. The mechanics are not equal, this is not the same thing as the other two spells. These we already stack.
That is my take on the question, and because that is a completely different take from what has been presented I end with: Ask your DM for their opinion.
The first two are affecting the weapon's property, they are giving it an enchantment, just like enchanting a weapon to deal lightning damage.
...
All of the Smites are single shot uses that do not affect the property of the weapon. The weapon is still going to be mundane, it does 1d6 slashing damage.
...
The mechanics are not equal, this is not the same thing as the other two spells.
That's not how Divine Strike works though. You don't use it on a weapon, and it doesn't make the weapon magical. The cleric hits with a weapon and chooses to deal additional damage. The next turn they can swing a different weapon and still choose to deal additional damage. It's functionally the same as smiting, except it doesn't cost them slots and it's limited to once per turn.
Crimson Rite is specific to the weapon, but doesn't turn it into a magical weapon either and the additional damage isn't part of the weapon's damage dice the way a Flametongue or Frost Brand's extra damage is.
The rules don't assign any special meaning to "imbue" or "infuse" or anything else like that. The mechanical effects of each ability mentioned is the same - you meet certain criteria, and your attack deals more damage; the only difference is the criteria and the narrative behind it.
It really just feels like you're attempting to make this as difficult as possible, THACO. Instead of proposing houserules to disallow multiple sources of elemental damage and start splitting hairs over imbue or infuse or permanent or semi permanent effects, just answer the guy's question: no, there is no rule indicating that this is even an issue, much less a problem.
Nothing wrong with playing devil's advocate in a civilized discussion. I wouldn't know nearly as much about the rules if I didn't get into so many debates about them, and I've been wrong before.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Forum Infestation (TM)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I am playing a 6th level Bloodhunter who was awarded a sword that does Lighting damage. I have the Rite of Flame and I was wondering if I could still use my rite on top of the electrical damage and if so, can someone post the page or the rule that states we can?
There's no general rule that forbids stacking damage bonuses on your attacks, and thus there's nothing to quote. Certain spells or class features might have restrictions; the Elemental Weapon spell requires a nonmagical weapon, so it won't work with your magical sword. Crimson Rite doesn't care if the weapon is magical or not.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I do not have a rule to quote, so instead I'll just give you my take on this.
Observation 1:
All of the magical weapons that I've had the pleasure of looking at seem to only have 2 types of damage associated to them: their base bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage and whatever element or magic damage.
Observation 2:
Every attack I've seen that has a third damage type has been due to attaching a new source of damage to the attack of the magical weapon: Holy Greatsword + Divine Smite + Thunderous Smite for example.
Observation 3:
The added third element type adds damage to the attack, it does not change any properties of the weapon.
---
With those observations, and the way that Rites are explained, I would say that you do not get added bonuses to your damage. The way that Rites are explained is, in my opinion, the similar effect as enchanting an item with a magical property (such as lightning). It would seem to me that the Rite would supersede the natural elemental property of the weapon until it fades, changing the elemental property until then.
InquisitiveCoder brings up a point in that; because there is no definitive restriction, there is argument to making it additional elemental damage. That said, it would be best to run this by your DM,
What exactly do you mean by "attaching a new attack"? Neither Divine Smite or Thunderous Smite are attacks so it's not clear what distinction is being made here for those two features compared to others.
How does Crimson Rite differ from, say, a Cleric's Divine Strike? This sets a really bad precedent where Paladins, Clerics and Zealot Barbarians would lose the extra radiant damage they get on their attacks if they happen to have certain magic weapons.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
By "Attaching a new attack" I mean it's adding something to the damage rolls for the weapon as a separate effect.
It made sense when I wrote it, I did not mean to suggest that it was an attack such as swinging the sword or casting a spell like Guiding Bolt.
---
As to the second part, you're correct it does set a precedent that certain weapons would effectively stop you from using those abilities. I recognized that by saying that you presented the argument that there is no definitive restriction in the description to say that it could not be done. It is a differing view and I didn't feel it was wrong, simply not my view, thus the "ask your DM" for their final say.
I don't think "ask your DM" is warranted here. I mean, of course, for every single question regarding D&D you should always ask your DM, even if that question is "can I play a Human Fighter?". Some rules are either vague enough, or houseruled often enough, that "ask your DM" is the best advice. In this case, though, I don't think there's a solid argument for vagueness. There is really nothing in the rules to indicate it should not stack. Moreover, the argument proposed by DMThac0 seems to support, rather than oppose, that conclusion: here we have a weapon with 2 types of damage (slashing/piercing/bludgeoning, plus lightning), an ability (crimson rites) that "attaches" a new source of damage to an existing weapon, which also does not change any properties of the weapon.
I do believe InquisitveCoder's first response answers the original question both succinctly and exhaustively, though: there is no general rule preventing it, and the items in question (the weapon, and the crimson rites ability) don't have any specific rules preventing it, either, so it should be allowed.
These two give the weapon a new property.
----
These two add a damage roll from a separate source.
----
There are two completely different mechanics going on here.
The first two are affecting the weapon's property, they are giving it an enchantment, just like enchanting a weapon to deal lightning damage. The only difference is that the lightning sword has a permanent effect unlike the two abilities which are semi-permanent. Crimson Rite and Divine Strike are the same mechanic they are changing the weapon's property. You take a mundane weapon, and from the time you use the ability until you change weapons or drop the ability, that weapon is now enchanted with that property. The damage becomes 1d6 slashing and XdX element for the life time of the ability or weapon. These I would not let stack
All of the Smites are single shot uses that do not affect the property of the weapon. The weapon is still going to be mundane, it does 1d6 slashing damage. After the spell is used it does 1d6 slashing damage. When the spell is used it does 1d6 slashing damage. There is no change to the weapon. It is a separate source of damage from the weapon. It's temporary and if you lose concentration, you may lose the damage. The mechanics are not equal, this is not the same thing as the other two spells. These we already stack.
That is my take on the question, and because that is a completely different take from what has been presented I end with: Ask your DM for their opinion.
That's not how Divine Strike works though. You don't use it on a weapon, and it doesn't make the weapon magical. The cleric hits with a weapon and chooses to deal additional damage. The next turn they can swing a different weapon and still choose to deal additional damage. It's functionally the same as smiting, except it doesn't cost them slots and it's limited to once per turn.
Crimson Rite is specific to the weapon, but doesn't turn it into a magical weapon either and the additional damage isn't part of the weapon's damage dice the way a Flametongue or Frost Brand's extra damage is.
The rules don't assign any special meaning to "imbue" or "infuse" or anything else like that. The mechanical effects of each ability mentioned is the same - you meet certain criteria, and your attack deals more damage; the only difference is the criteria and the narrative behind it.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
It really just feels like you're attempting to make this as difficult as possible, THACO. Instead of proposing houserules to disallow multiple sources of elemental damage and start splitting hairs over imbue or infuse or permanent or semi permanent effects, just answer the guy's question: no, there is no rule indicating that this is even an issue, much less a problem.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Nothing wrong with playing devil's advocate in a civilized discussion. I wouldn't know nearly as much about the rules if I didn't get into so many debates about them, and I've been wrong before.
The Forum Infestation (TM)