Hi - It's me; the friend in question. I feel it's important to provide some much-needed clarification and rules-lawyering foundation here. The character in question was a Divine Soul Sorcerer 3/Warlock 2 (I've since gone full Divine Soul Sorcerer due to party healing/support needs - the 2 level of spell loss was hurting us), and the DM has already ruled in my favor on this due in large part to the points I have laid out below coupled with an early-determined ruling concerning True Strike. I'd like to also state this has never been an argument with my DM, and only been a point of contention with less-optimized party members dealing less damage from levels 5-11 (there's no way I was outdpr-ing our Paladin's or Rogue's single-target after that) especially with my character prioritizing support/heal first.
Initial ruling that factors) In our campaign, it has been firmly accepted that True Strike is a valid Agonizing Blast option at all levels, and the DM has chosen to rule that the weapon attack is turned into a spell attack, thus making the damage rolls spell damage. This ruling was established (and I agree with it) due to True Strike requiring a Magic Action and the verbiage within the 2024 definition of Spell Attack: "A spell attack is an attack roll made as part of a spell or another magical effect." This, at least in our campaign, firmly cements True Strike's full scope of damage rolls as damage inflicted by a spell (spell damage). So bear in mind, the discussion is not around this. It's about the 'extra' damage at level 5+ and whether it is a separate damage roll.
My/DM's interpretation of True Strike.
"True Strike, at level 5 or above, always consists of two damage rolls, both of which can have Agonizing Blast bonus damage applied to them."
Arguments:
1) The first portion of the spell's listed damage access (the weapon roll that has been converted) uses a separate damage roll than the extra spell damage applied at higher levels. The spell specifies (within the context of a singular application of the cantrip) that damage rolls (note plural) when it specifically says "The attack uses your spellcasting ability for the attack and damage rolls instead of using Strength or Dexterity." This is a clear designation that multiple damage rolls occur within one application of the cantrip.
2) True Strike's damage dice addition at level 5 is worded in a very distinct fashion. Consider a different scalar cantrip, Produce Flame. Produce Flame 2024 specifies:
"On a hit, the target takes 1d8 fire damage" Then under the cantrip upgrade portion, it says "The damage increases by 1d8 when you reach levels 5 (2d8), 11 (3d8), and 17 (4d8)." In this case, it's very clear that the additional 1d8 is part of the initial damage roll, as it is simply increasing the total. Now look at True Strike 2024: "If the attack deals damage, it can be Radiant damage or the weapon’s normal damage type (your choice)." Then, in the cantrip upgrade portion: "the attack deals extra Radiant damage when you reach levels 5 (1d6), 11 (2d6), and 17 (3d6)." The word 'extra' is key to the very RAW approach taken here; if the intention behind the spell was for it only be one cumulative damage roll, the wording here should be something like (as with most other scalar cantrips) : "The damage from the attack increases by 1d6 Radiant damage when you reach levels 5 (1d6), 11 (2d6), and 17 (3d6)." Admittedly, this is a much weaker argument than 1, and more open to RAW interpretation.
3) This is purely to debunk anyone saying "one spell attack, one damage roll", and supports argument 2. Green-Flame blade uses a single spell attack to deal multiple damage rolls, uses the words "extra" and "increases" to clearly indicate multiple damage rolls, and is widely accepted as a valid way for Agonizing Blast to proc twice (at level 5 - prior, the damage dealt to the second target is unrolled, and not valid).
All of that said, I would be very unsurprised if a rules clarification hits on this any day now saying exactly what my friend is arguing; that True Strike is a single cumulative damage roll, and going even further to say that it isn't a viable AB candidate until level 5. That feels way more balanced given the scope of what classes have access to True Strike, and other AB-valid cantrips. That said, I'd have just swapped to Eldritch Blast (and offered to do so for my DM when asking about True Strike), which is a significantly better candidate for Elven Accuracy procs anyways (which I had). Given that, for me, this was more of a nit-picking of RAW interpretation, which I have a guilty pleasure for.
Argument 2) is not a "RAW approach", because nowhere in the rules is it established that using the word "extra" indicates separate damage rolls. Sneak Attack says it does "extra" damage; it's not a separate damage roll either
3) Green-Flame Blade does damage to different targets, and lists different amounts of damage done to each. True Strike does not
Hey, you got your DM to buy it, which is all that matters at your table. But RAW? Not even close
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Argument 2) is not a "RAW approach", because nowhere in the rules is it established that using the word "extra" indicates separate damage rolls. Sneak Attack says it does "extra" damage; it's not a separate damage roll either
3) Green-Flame Blade does damage to different targets, and lists different amounts of damage done to each. True Strike does not
Hey, you got your DM to buy it, which is all that matters at your table. But RAW? Not even close
Post 13's responder actually further supports argument 1 by openly saying the spell has two damage rolls. His/her argument clearly intends to somewhat (poorly) state that just because multiple dice are rolled, doesn't make it multiple damage rolls, but with zero supporting evidence. Simply quoting the spell actually assists in my argument, especially with the admission of multiple rolls.
Sneak attack's (though not a spell attack) wording also partially supports argument 2. Sneak attack's first damage die says "extra" and from there, it "increases." This is equivalent to the "extra" and then (implicit) "increasing" 1d6/2d6/3d6 of True Strike. The first portion of True Strike, the non-scalar part isn't "extra," it doesn't "increase." It is a separate source of damage, and not really comparable to anything sneak attack brings to the table rules-wise, as Sneak Attack (typically) operates on a standard/attack action, not a Magic Action. An interesting parallel though.
Damage to multiple targets has no bearing on the argument. True Strike does list different amounts of damage, insofar as a weapon's damage die could be different than 1d6-not that it's super relevant. Earlier posts outright said "one damage roll per spell attack" (paraphrased, but said multiple times) and this argument's main point is to outright prove that some spells render that false, while lending credence to True Strike also being able to operate on multiple damage rolls.
In the spell descriptions, "increase" is used when adding more damage of the same type, while "extra" is used for adding damage of a different type, but the damage is rolled together. "Extra" means "additional," not "separate". E.g. Smite spells are good examples.
This differentiation is used in Green-Flame Blade (your argument 3):
At 5th level, the melee attack deals an extra 1d8 fire damage to the target on a hit, and the fire damage to the second creature increases to 1d8 + your spellcasting ability modifier.
So "deals an extra 1d8 fire damage" because before that "the target suffers the weapon attack’s normal effects". And "the fire damage to the second creature increases" because before that "The second creature takes fire damage".
The same with Critical Hits, for example:
A Critical Hit lets you roll extra dice for the attack’s damage against the target. Roll all of the attack’s damage dice twice and add them together.
Even for Sneak Attack, we have this sentence to explain how the additional (not separate) damage type behaves: "The extra damage’s type is the same as the weapon’s type."
Post 13's responder actually further supports argument 1 by openly saying the spell has two damage rolls. His/her argument clearly intends to somewhat (poorly) state that just because multiple dice are rolled, doesn't make it multiple damage rolls, but with zero supporting evidence. Simply quoting the spell actually assists in my argument, especially with the admission of multiple rolls.
You have definitely misread post 13, Rule 13 is stating that there are attack rolls and damage rolls but that they are singular instances. So if you perform an attack while under the effects of bless, you roll a D20, a D4 and add any applicable modifiers and bonuses. Once put together you get the result of the Attack Roll. So if you roll a 12, a 3, have a +4 ability modifier and +3 proficiency bonus, you'd get a total of 22 on that attack roll. On most creatures, that is a hit and then damage is rolled.
Assuming the same +4 Ability Modifier, assuming this is a rapier (1d8) performed by a Warlock who has Hex on their target and is benefiting from a Paladin's Crusader's mantle. They'd get 1d8+1d6+1d4+4 damage. Now the 1d8+4 is piercing damage, the 1d6 is Necrotic and the 1d4 is Radiant and the creature is resistant to Necrotic damage, thus the resulting damage of 5, 4 & 2 rolls would be 5+4/2+2+4 or 13 and this result 13 is considered a singular damage roll.
Each weapon, spell, and damaging monster ability specifies the damage it deals. You roll the damage dice, add any modifiers, and deal the damage to your target. If there’s a penalty to the damage, it’s possible to deal 0 damage but not negative damage.
When attacking with a weapon, you add your ability modifier—the same modifier used for the attack roll—to the damage roll. A spell tells you which dice to roll for damage and whether to add any modifiers. Unless a rule says otherwise, you don’t add your ability modifier to a fixed damage amount that doesn’t use a roll, such as the damage of a Blowgun. See chapter 6 for weapons’ damage dice and chapter 7 for spells’ damage dice.
A damage roll has dice (where dice is the plural form of die).
Prerequisite: Level 2+ Warlock, a Warlock Cantrip That Deals Damage
Choose one of your known Warlock cantrips that deals damage. You can add your Charisma modifier to that spell’s damage rolls.
Repeatable. You can gain this invocation more than once. Each time you do so, choose a different eligible cantrip.
This specifies it is added to spell's damage rolls, a spell like Eldritch Blast, has multiple attacks thus it has multiple attack rolls and damage rolls.
Guided by a flash of magical insight, you make one attack with the weapon used in the spell’s casting. The attack uses your spellcasting ability for the attack and damage rolls instead of using Strength or Dexterity. If the attack deals damage, it can be Radiant damage or the weapon’s normal damage type (your choice).
Cantrip Upgrade. Whether you deal Radiant damage or the weapon’s normal damage type, the attack deals extra Radiant damage when you reach levels 5 (1d6), 11 (2d6), and 17 (3d6).
The very first sentence of True Strike stipulates, you make ONE attack, thus you only roll one attack roll and one damage roll per use of this cantrip. When you reach levels 5, 11 and 17 the when you deal damage (of whatever type), you additionally add extra damage, this implicitly means to the existing damage roll, this is not a separate instance of damage but damage dealt as part of the already existing damage roll.
Now one area we can clearly show that this is how it works is the instance of an attack that does cause two damage rolls and that would be Psi Warrior's Psionic Strike.
You can propel your weapons with psionic force. Once on each of your turns, immediately after you hit a target within 30 feet of yourself with an attack and deal damage to it with a weapon, you can expend one Psionic Energy Die, rolling it and dealing Force damage to the target equal to the number rolled plus your Intelligence modifier.
Here it is explicit, the damage of Psionic Strike occurs AFTER the normal damage roll, because it is a separate instance. Unless explicitly stated, Extra damage is always added to the existing damage roll and we do indeed have cases where it is explicitly stated. There are multiple spells that similarly also state such things, i.e. searing smite
As you hit the target, it takes an extra 1d6 Fire damage from the attack. At the start of each of its turns until the spell ends, the target takes 1d6 Fire damage and then makes a Constitution saving throw. On a failed save, the spell continues. On a successful save, the spell ends.
Using a Higher-Level Spell Slot. All the damage increases by 1d6 for each spell slot level above 1.
explicitly it states, "At the start of each of it's turns." Times when damage rolls are separate are ALWAYS explicitly stated. If you return to True Strike, there is no such statement, the damage is dealt at the same time, it is the same damage roll.
In the spell descriptions, "increase" is used when adding more damage of the same type, while "extra" is used for adding damage of a different type, but the damage is rolled together. "Extra" means "additional," not "separate". E.g. Smite spells are good examples.
This differentiation is used in Green-Flame Blade (your argument 3):
At 5th level, the melee attack deals an extra 1d8 fire damage to the target on a hit, and the fire damage to the second creature increases to 1d8 + your spellcasting ability modifier.
So "deals an extra 1d8 fire damage" because before that "the target suffers the weapon attack’s normal effects". And "the fire damage to the second creature increases" because before that "The second creature takes fire damage".
I've argued this with myself before and I think this is the single best counter-argument to my provided #2/#3 points. I think that while this doesn't outright invalidate #2/#3, it definitely parks them more into a state of ambiguity/intended interpretation vs. RAW interpretation. If I were a player, and my DM gave this as a rebuttal for #2/#3, I'd have no qualms. Great answer/counter for #2/#3 specifically. Not quite going to swing me on the most critical point, #1.
"You have definitely misread post 13, Rule 13 is stating that there are attack rolls and damage rolls but that they are singular instances. So if you perform an attack while under the effects of bless, you roll a D20, a D4 and add any applicable modifiers and bonuses. Once put together you get the result of the Attack Roll. So if you roll a 12, a 3, have a +4 ability modifier and +3 proficiency bonus, you'd get a total of 22 on that attack roll. On most creatures, that is a hit and then damage is rolled."
No, I have not. I clearly understood the author's intent, and believe you are reading way too much into what's frankly a poorly worded, bad argument. Bless operates very differently, I would not argue that, and am well aware of the difference between attack and damage rolls.
Citing the book's definition for Damage Rolls doesn't support you. I'm not arguing what a damage roll is, just that True Strike at 5+ has two.
"The very first sentence of True Strike stipulates, you make ONE attack, thus you only roll one attack roll and one damage roll per use of this cantrip. When you reach levels 5, 11 and 17 the when you deal damage (of whatever type), you additionally add extra damage, this implicitly means to the existing damage roll, this is not a separate instance of damage but damage dealt as part of the already existing damage roll."
Words like "implicitly" should be very carefully used when discussing things at a RAW level. You, the person with the opinion, are deciding to interpret that implication. Green-Flame blade is one attack, but has multiple damage rolls. While the first sentence specifies one attack, the second sentence keeps the context of that singular attack, and specifies plural rolls - not dice.
Guys, I think it's very clear the intended application/use of the cantrip is for it to have one damage roll, and that's not the same as the RAW. At this juncture, however, if someone asks me, from a RAW perspective, how many damage rolls True Strike has at level 5+, I'm saying 2 until an official errata entry is logged, or the great Crawford descends from Hasbro Heaven to say otherwise. (Or someone in a similar capacity)
I probably won't revisit this post again. Again, excellent discussion, particularly good counter arguments from TarodNet.
P.S. Sorry for the awful formatting of this reply - this forum response style is so wonky.
In the spell descriptions, "increase" is used when adding more damage of the same type, while "extra" is used for adding damage of a different type, but the damage is rolled together. "Extra" means "additional," not "separate". E.g. Smite spells are good examples.
This differentiation is used in Green-Flame Blade (your argument 3):
At 5th level, the melee attack deals an extra 1d8 fire damage to the target on a hit, and the fire damage to the second creature increases to 1d8 + your spellcasting ability modifier.
So "deals an extra 1d8 fire damage" because before that "the target suffers the weapon attack’s normal effects". And "the fire damage to the second creature increases" because before that "The second creature takes fire damage".
I've argued this with myself before and I think this is the single best counter-argument to my provided #2/#3 points. I think that while this doesn't outright invalidate #2/#3, it definitely parks them more into a state of ambiguity/intended interpretation vs. RAW interpretation. If I were a player, and my DM gave this as a rebuttal for #2/#3, I'd have no qualms. Great answer/counter for #2/#3 specifically. Not quite going to swing me on the most critical point, #1.
Nice to see agreement on #2 and #3. But #1 is actually related.
1) The first portion of the spell's listed damage access (the weapon roll that has been converted) uses a separate damage roll than the extra spell damage applied at higher levels. The spell specifies (within the context of a singular application of the cantrip) that damage rolls (note plural) when it specifically says "The attack uses your spellcasting ability for the attack and damage rolls instead of using Strength or Dexterity." This is a clear designation that multiple damage rolls occur within one application of the cantrip.
The sentence "The attack uses your spellcasting ability for the attack and damage rolls instead of using Strength or Dexterity" doesn't mean multiple damage rolls are made.
It means: "The attack uses your spellcasting ability for the attack roll, and the attack uses your spellcasting ability for the damage roll".
Shillelagh [...] For the duration, you can use your spellcasting ability instead of Strength for the attack and damage rolls of melee attacks using that weapon, and the weapon’s damage die becomes a d8. [...]
"The very first sentence of True Strike stipulates, you make ONE attack, thus you only roll one attack roll and one damage roll per use of this cantrip. When you reach levels 5, 11 and 17 the when you deal damage (of whatever type), you additionally add extra damage, this implicitly means to the existing damage roll, this is not a separate instance of damage but damage dealt as part of the already existing damage roll."
Words like "implicitly" should be very carefully used when discussing things at a RAW level. You, the person with the opinion, are deciding to interpret that implication. Green-Flame blade is one attack, but has multiple damage rolls. While the first sentence specifies one attack, the second sentence keeps the context of that singular attack, and specifies plural rolls - not dice.
Guys, I think it's very clear the intended application/use of the cantrip is for it to have one damage roll, and that's not the same as the RAW. At this juncture, however, if someone asks me, from a RAW perspective, how many damage rolls True Strike has at level 5+, I'm saying 2 until an official errata entry is logged, or the great Crawford descends from Hasbro Heaven to say otherwise. (Or someone in a similar capacity)
I probably won't revisit this post again. Again, excellent discussion, particularly good counter arguments from TarodNet.
P.S. Sorry for the awful formatting of this reply - this forum response style is so wonky.
I am both very careful and correct in my usage of the word implicitly here, anybody who has read the books knows that there are conventions that the books are written by but not always explicitly stated. For example it is implicitly understood that cantrips are learnt while levelled spells are prepared, generally there is no rule for this but looking at all spellcasting classes, such implicit definitions are clear to see.
Green-Flame blade explicitly states that the first target takes the normal effects of the attack, that means attack and damage rolls are resolved, it then says, "and you can cause green fire to leap from the target to a different creature of your choice that you can see within 5 feet of it." There is an order of operations here and it's clear that the effect of Green-Flame blade is explicitly stated as being separate to the weapon attack, nothing in True Strike at any point infers that the damage added by True Strike is separate to the weapon attack. And in fact what you're arguing for is that Green-Flame blade does THREE instances of damage at level 5.
If reading Green-Flame blade properly, the damage that "jumps" to the second creature, neither uses the words 'additional' or 'extra', as these words have specific usage within D&D similar too how Cantrips are learnt and Levelled Spells are prepared. Instead, Green-Flame Blade explicitly states the second creature "takes damage". However the word Extra is used for adding the 1d8 fire damage at level 5 to the weapon attack, because in this context, the 1d8 fire damage is part of the weapon attack, not separate too it.
The intended use of True Strike and RAW match, it has only one damage roll, EXTRA damage has never meant a separate damage roll and there is literally nowhere you can point to, to support that, meanwhile there are plenty of instances where EXTRA damage is shown to be part of the same damage roll as the attack, most famously SNEAK ATTACK. Sneak attack adds extra damage.
When you score a Critical Hit, you deal extra damage. Roll the attack’s damage dice twice, add them together, and add any relevant modifiers as normal. For example, if you score a Critical Hit with a Dagger, roll 2d4 for the damage rather than 1d4, and add your relevant ability modifier. If the attack involves other damage dice, such as from the Rogue’s Sneak Attack feature, you also roll those dice twice.
Sneak Attack critical hits because the Extra damage is part of the damage roll. In fact Critical hits are DESCRIBED as "Extra damage" themselves, are critical hits two instance of damage? no. Nobody sees it that way, thus we implicitly know the word Extra in regards to damage, unless otherwise stated, always means as part of the already existing damage roll.
Post 13's responder actually further supports argument 1 by openly saying the spell has two damage rolls. His/her argument clearly intends to somewhat (poorly) state that just because multiple dice are rolled, doesn't make it multiple damage rolls, but with zero supporting evidence. Simply quoting the spell actually assists in my argument, especially with the admission of multiple rolls.
No, I have not. I clearly understood the author's intent, and believe you are reading way too much into what's frankly a poorly worded, bad argument. Bless operates very differently, I would not argue that, and am well aware of the difference between attack and damage rolls.
No you have completely misunderstood my point. You claim that the rule uses the plural "rolls" because it is two separate damage rolls but that is false. It uses the plural "rolls" because you get to apply the bonus to both your attack roll and to your damage roll. It is two separate rolls but still only one single damage roll.
At 5th level, the melee attack deals an extra 1d8 fire damage to the target on a hit, and the fire damage to the second creature increases to 1d8 + your spellcasting ability modifier.
I've argued this with myself before and I think this is the single best counter-argument to my provided #2/#3 points. I think that while this doesn't outright invalidate #2/#3, it definitely parks them more into a state of ambiguity/intended interpretation vs. RAW interpretation. If I were a player, and my DM gave this as a rebuttal for #2/#3, I'd have no qualms. Great answer/counter for #2/#3 specifically. Not quite going to swing me on the most critical point, #1.
The rules are actually quite clear and consistent with the uses of "extra" and "increase" when it comes to damage calculations just as TarodNet said.
"Extra" is used when a feature add new dices to a calculation. Extra fire damage for a Flame Tongue, extra damage from Sneak Attack, extra damage from spells like Hunter's Mark, added secondary damage instances for GFB or BB and the extra damage from True Strike.
"Increases" is used when the number of dice a feature adds increase in number. More dices for a up-casted Fireball, more dices from Sneak Attack when you gain levels in Rogue or more dices for many cantrips when you go up in character level.
Neither of these changes the fact that a damage roll is one single roll. To become separate rolls a feature needs something that explicitly makes it so, like GFB and BB that does the damage to a separate creature or at a separate time. True Strike lacks any such function that makes it be separate rolls.
P.S. Sorry for the awful formatting of this reply - this forum response style is so wonky.
Agreed, this forum software is really poor. You have all the limitations of using BBCode but not the ability to actually see the code so that you can fix (or work with) the crap code that is auto added by the forum. Sometimes it feels like trying to edit a word document without having a screen to view it.
Agreed, this forum software is really poor. You have all the limitations of using BBCode but not the ability to actually see the code so that you can fix (or work with) the crap code that is auto added by the forum. Sometimes it feels like trying to edit a word document without having a screen to view it.
Click the </> button when editing, and you can edit the html directly. Helps a little.
. . .Post 13's responder actually further supports argument 1 by openly saying the spell has two damage rolls. His/her argument clearly intends to somewhat (poorly) state that just because multiple dice are rolled, doesn't make it multiple damage rolls, but with zero supporting evidence. . .
Here is supporting evidence that multiple dice being rolled does not automatically make it multiple damage rolls.
I will admit that it does not prove that multiple dice couldn't be multiple damage rolls, but that is not what Post 13 claimed. What was being claimed was that the argument 'multiple dice automatically means multiple damage rolls' is a faulty argument.
Hi - It's me; the friend in question. I feel it's important to provide some much-needed clarification and rules-lawyering foundation here. The character in question was a Divine Soul Sorcerer 3/Warlock 2 (I've since gone full Divine Soul Sorcerer due to party healing/support needs - the 2 level of spell loss was hurting us), and the DM has already ruled in my favor on this due in large part to the points I have laid out below coupled with an early-determined ruling concerning True Strike. I'd like to also state this has never been an argument with my DM, and only been a point of contention with less-optimized party members dealing less damage from levels 5-11 (there's no way I was outdpr-ing our Paladin's or Rogue's single-target after that) especially with my character prioritizing support/heal first.
Initial ruling that factors) In our campaign, it has been firmly accepted that True Strike is a valid Agonizing Blast option at all levels, and the DM has chosen to rule that the weapon attack is turned into a spell attack, thus making the damage rolls spell damage. This ruling was established (and I agree with it) due to True Strike requiring a Magic Action and the verbiage within the 2024 definition of Spell Attack: "A spell attack is an attack roll made as part of a spell or another magical effect." This, at least in our campaign, firmly cements True Strike's full scope of damage rolls as damage inflicted by a spell (spell damage). So bear in mind, the discussion is not around this. It's about the 'extra' damage at level 5+ and whether it is a separate damage roll.
My/DM's interpretation of True Strike.
"True Strike, at level 5 or above, always consists of two damage rolls, both of which can have Agonizing Blast bonus damage applied to them."
Arguments:
1) The first portion of the spell's listed damage access (the weapon roll that has been converted) uses a separate damage roll than the extra spell damage applied at higher levels. The spell specifies (within the context of a singular application of the cantrip) that damage rolls (note plural) when it specifically says "The attack uses your spellcasting ability for the attack and damage rolls instead of using Strength or Dexterity." This is a clear designation that multiple damage rolls occur within one application of the cantrip.
2) True Strike's damage dice addition at level 5 is worded in a very distinct fashion. Consider a different scalar cantrip, Produce Flame. Produce Flame 2024 specifies:
"On a hit, the target takes 1d8 fire damage" Then under the cantrip upgrade portion, it says "The damage increases by 1d8 when you reach levels 5 (2d8), 11 (3d8), and 17 (4d8)." In this case, it's very clear that the additional 1d8 is part of the initial damage roll, as it is simply increasing the total. Now look at True Strike 2024: "If the attack deals damage, it can be Radiant damage or the weapon’s normal damage type (your choice)." Then, in the cantrip upgrade portion: "the attack deals extra Radiant damage when you reach levels 5 (1d6), 11 (2d6), and 17 (3d6)." The word 'extra' is key to the very RAW approach taken here; if the intention behind the spell was for it only be one cumulative damage roll, the wording here should be something like (as with most other scalar cantrips) : "The damage from the attack increases by 1d6 Radiant damage when you reach levels 5 (1d6), 11 (2d6), and 17 (3d6)." Admittedly, this is a much weaker argument than 1, and more open to RAW interpretation.
3) This is purely to debunk anyone saying "one spell attack, one damage roll", and supports argument 2. Green-Flame blade uses a single spell attack to deal multiple damage rolls, uses the words "extra" and "increases" to clearly indicate multiple damage rolls, and is widely accepted as a valid way for Agonizing Blast to proc twice (at level 5 - prior, the damage dealt to the second target is unrolled, and not valid).
All of that said, I would be very unsurprised if a rules clarification hits on this any day now saying exactly what my friend is arguing; that True Strike is a single cumulative damage roll, and going even further to say that it isn't a viable AB candidate until level 5. That feels way more balanced given the scope of what classes have access to True Strike, and other AB-valid cantrips. That said, I'd have just swapped to Eldritch Blast (and offered to do so for my DM when asking about True Strike), which is a significantly better candidate for Elven Accuracy procs anyways (which I had). Given that, for me, this was more of a nit-picking of RAW interpretation, which I have a guilty pleasure for.
Blessings.
@quadhund If I make 1 attack with a longsword as a part of casting Green Flame Blade, while having the Hex spell affecting the target, and then I use Divine Smite once the attack hits, how many damage rolls are there? @JeremyECrawford When something in the game (Sneak Attack, Divine Smite, hex, etc.) causes your attack/spell/etc. to deal extra dice of damage, those dice are added to the damage the effect is already dealing, if any. It's one big damage roll, extra damage included. @DaveWil33 Would only be a second damage roll if there was something locked behind a save like poison damage, yes? @JeremyECrawford If an attack has a damage roll but also a second damage roll (not extra damage) that is contingent on a saving throw, the damage of that second source is a different damage roll from the first. @RubiksMoose how do you distinguish between second damage roll and extra damage? @JeremyECrawford Separate damage rolls are delivered by separate attack rolls, saving throws, or other processes. Extra/bonus/additional damage is called extra/bonus/additional damage.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hi - It's me; the friend in question. I feel it's important to provide some much-needed clarification and rules-lawyering foundation here.
The character in question was a Divine Soul Sorcerer 3/Warlock 2 (I've since gone full Divine Soul Sorcerer due to party healing/support needs - the 2 level of spell loss was hurting us), and the DM has already ruled in my favor on this due in large part to the points I have laid out below coupled with an early-determined ruling concerning True Strike. I'd like to also state this has never been an argument with my DM, and only been a point of contention with less-optimized party members dealing less damage from levels 5-11 (there's no way I was outdpr-ing our Paladin's or Rogue's single-target after that) especially with my character prioritizing support/heal first.
Initial ruling that factors) In our campaign, it has been firmly accepted that True Strike is a valid Agonizing Blast option at all levels, and the DM has chosen to rule that the weapon attack is turned into a spell attack, thus making the damage rolls spell damage. This ruling was established (and I agree with it) due to True Strike requiring a Magic Action and the verbiage within the 2024 definition of Spell Attack: "A spell attack is an attack roll made as part of a spell or another magical effect." This, at least in our campaign, firmly cements True Strike's full scope of damage rolls as damage inflicted by a spell (spell damage). So bear in mind, the discussion is not around this. It's about the 'extra' damage at level 5+ and whether it is a separate damage roll.
My/DM's interpretation of True Strike.
"True Strike, at level 5 or above, always consists of two damage rolls, both of which can have Agonizing Blast bonus damage applied to them."
Arguments:
1) The first portion of the spell's listed damage access (the weapon roll that has been converted) uses a separate damage roll than the extra spell damage applied at higher levels. The spell specifies (within the context of a singular application of the cantrip) that damage rolls (note plural) when it specifically says "The attack uses your spellcasting ability for the attack and damage rolls instead of using Strength or Dexterity." This is a clear designation that multiple damage rolls occur within one application of the cantrip.
2) True Strike's damage dice addition at level 5 is worded in a very distinct fashion. Consider a different scalar cantrip, Produce Flame. Produce Flame 2024 specifies:
"On a hit, the target takes 1d8 fire damage" Then under the cantrip upgrade portion, it says "The damage increases by 1d8 when you reach levels 5 (2d8), 11 (3d8), and 17 (4d8)." In this case, it's very clear that the additional 1d8 is part of the initial damage roll, as it is simply increasing the total. Now look at True Strike 2024: "If the attack deals damage, it can be Radiant damage or the weapon’s normal damage type (your choice)." Then, in the cantrip upgrade portion: "the attack deals extra Radiant damage when you reach levels 5 (1d6), 11 (2d6), and 17 (3d6)." The word 'extra' is key to the very RAW approach taken here; if the intention behind the spell was for it only be one cumulative damage roll, the wording here should be something like (as with most other scalar cantrips) : "The damage from the attack increases by 1d6 Radiant damage when you reach levels 5 (1d6), 11 (2d6), and 17 (3d6)." Admittedly, this is a much weaker argument than 1, and more open to RAW interpretation.
3) This is purely to debunk anyone saying "one spell attack, one damage roll", and supports argument 2. Green-Flame blade uses a single spell attack to deal multiple damage rolls, uses the words "extra" and "increases" to clearly indicate multiple damage rolls, and is widely accepted as a valid way for Agonizing Blast to proc twice (at level 5 - prior, the damage dealt to the second target is unrolled, and not valid).
All of that said, I would be very unsurprised if a rules clarification hits on this any day now saying exactly what my friend is arguing; that True Strike is a single cumulative damage roll, and going even further to say that it isn't a viable AB candidate until level 5. That feels way more balanced given the scope of what classes have access to True Strike, and other AB-valid cantrips. That said, I'd have just swapped to Eldritch Blast (and offered to do so for my DM when asking about True Strike), which is a significantly better candidate for Elven Accuracy procs anyways (which I had). Given that, for me, this was more of a nit-picking of RAW interpretation, which I have a guilty pleasure for.
Blessings.
Argument 1) was already refuted in post 13
Argument 2) is not a "RAW approach", because nowhere in the rules is it established that using the word "extra" indicates separate damage rolls. Sneak Attack says it does "extra" damage; it's not a separate damage roll either
3) Green-Flame Blade does damage to different targets, and lists different amounts of damage done to each. True Strike does not
Hey, you got your DM to buy it, which is all that matters at your table. But RAW? Not even close
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Post 13's responder actually further supports argument 1 by openly saying the spell has two damage rolls. His/her argument clearly intends to somewhat (poorly) state that just because multiple dice are rolled, doesn't make it multiple damage rolls, but with zero supporting evidence. Simply quoting the spell actually assists in my argument, especially with the admission of multiple rolls.
Sneak attack's (though not a spell attack) wording also partially supports argument 2. Sneak attack's first damage die says "extra" and from there, it "increases." This is equivalent to the "extra" and then (implicit) "increasing" 1d6/2d6/3d6 of True Strike. The first portion of True Strike, the non-scalar part isn't "extra," it doesn't "increase." It is a separate source of damage, and not really comparable to anything sneak attack brings to the table rules-wise, as Sneak Attack (typically) operates on a standard/attack action, not a Magic Action. An interesting parallel though.
Damage to multiple targets has no bearing on the argument. True Strike does list different amounts of damage, insofar as a weapon's damage die could be different than 1d6-not that it's super relevant. Earlier posts outright said "one damage roll per spell attack" (paraphrased, but said multiple times) and this argument's main point is to outright prove that some spells render that false, while lending credence to True Strike also being able to operate on multiple damage rolls.
In the spell descriptions, "increase" is used when adding more damage of the same type, while "extra" is used for adding damage of a different type, but the damage is rolled together. "Extra" means "additional," not "separate". E.g. Smite spells are good examples.
This differentiation is used in Green-Flame Blade (your argument 3):
So "deals an extra 1d8 fire damage" because before that "the target suffers the weapon attack’s normal effects". And "the fire damage to the second creature increases" because before that "The second creature takes fire damage".
The same with Critical Hits, for example:
Even for Sneak Attack, we have this sentence to explain how the additional (not separate) damage type behaves: "The extra damage’s type is the same as the weapon’s type."
You have definitely misread post 13, Rule 13 is stating that there are attack rolls and damage rolls but that they are singular instances. So if you perform an attack while under the effects of bless, you roll a D20, a D4 and add any applicable modifiers and bonuses. Once put together you get the result of the Attack Roll. So if you roll a 12, a 3, have a +4 ability modifier and +3 proficiency bonus, you'd get a total of 22 on that attack roll. On most creatures, that is a hit and then damage is rolled.
Assuming the same +4 Ability Modifier, assuming this is a rapier (1d8) performed by a Warlock who has Hex on their target and is benefiting from a Paladin's Crusader's mantle. They'd get 1d8+1d6+1d4+4 damage. Now the 1d8+4 is piercing damage, the 1d6 is Necrotic and the 1d4 is Radiant and the creature is resistant to Necrotic damage, thus the resulting damage of 5, 4 & 2 rolls would be 5+4/2+2+4 or 13 and this result 13 is considered a singular damage roll.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/free-rules/playing-the-game#DamageRolls
A damage roll has dice (where dice is the plural form of die).
If we then look at Agonizing Blast: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/free-rules/character-classes#AgonizingBlast
This specifies it is added to spell's damage rolls, a spell like Eldritch Blast, has multiple attacks thus it has multiple attack rolls and damage rolls.
Now let's look at True Strike: https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/2619204-true-strike
The very first sentence of True Strike stipulates, you make ONE attack, thus you only roll one attack roll and one damage roll per use of this cantrip. When you reach levels 5, 11 and 17 the when you deal damage (of whatever type), you additionally add extra damage, this implicitly means to the existing damage roll, this is not a separate instance of damage but damage dealt as part of the already existing damage roll.
Now one area we can clearly show that this is how it works is the instance of an attack that does cause two damage rolls and that would be Psi Warrior's Psionic Strike.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/phb-2024/character-classes#PsiWarrior
Here it is explicit, the damage of Psionic Strike occurs AFTER the normal damage roll, because it is a separate instance. Unless explicitly stated, Extra damage is always added to the existing damage roll and we do indeed have cases where it is explicitly stated. There are multiple spells that similarly also state such things, i.e. searing smite
https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/2619009-searing-smite
explicitly it states, "At the start of each of it's turns." Times when damage rolls are separate are ALWAYS explicitly stated. If you return to True Strike, there is no such statement, the damage is dealt at the same time, it is the same damage roll.
In the spell descriptions, "increase" is used when adding more damage of the same type, while "extra" is used for adding damage of a different type, but the damage is rolled together. "Extra" means "additional," not "separate". E.g. Smite spells are good examples.
This differentiation is used in Green-Flame Blade (your argument 3):
At 5th level, the melee attack deals an extra 1d8 fire damage to the target on a hit, and the fire damage to the second creature increases to 1d8 + your spellcasting ability modifier.
So "deals an extra 1d8 fire damage" because before that "the target suffers the weapon attack’s normal effects". And "the fire damage to the second creature increases" because before that "The second creature takes fire damage".
I've argued this with myself before and I think this is the single best counter-argument to my provided #2/#3 points. I think that while this doesn't outright invalidate #2/#3, it definitely parks them more into a state of ambiguity/intended interpretation vs. RAW interpretation. If I were a player, and my DM gave this as a rebuttal for #2/#3, I'd have no qualms. Great answer/counter for #2/#3 specifically. Not quite going to swing me on the most critical point, #1.
No, I have not. I clearly understood the author's intent, and believe you are reading way too much into what's frankly a poorly worded, bad argument. Bless operates very differently, I would not argue that, and am well aware of the difference between attack and damage rolls.
Citing the book's definition for Damage Rolls doesn't support you. I'm not arguing what a damage roll is, just that True Strike at 5+ has two.
"The very first sentence of True Strike stipulates, you make ONE attack, thus you only roll one attack roll and one damage roll per use of this cantrip. When you reach levels 5, 11 and 17 the when you deal damage (of whatever type), you additionally add extra damage, this implicitly means to the existing damage roll, this is not a separate instance of damage but damage dealt as part of the already existing damage roll."
Words like "implicitly" should be very carefully used when discussing things at a RAW level. You, the person with the opinion, are deciding to interpret that implication. Green-Flame blade is one attack, but has multiple damage rolls. While the first sentence specifies one attack, the second sentence keeps the context of that singular attack, and specifies plural rolls - not dice.
Guys, I think it's very clear the intended application/use of the cantrip is for it to have one damage roll, and that's not the same as the RAW. At this juncture, however, if someone asks me, from a RAW perspective, how many damage rolls True Strike has at level 5+, I'm saying 2 until an official errata entry is logged, or the great Crawford descends from Hasbro Heaven to say otherwise. (Or someone in a similar capacity)
I probably won't revisit this post again. Again, excellent discussion, particularly good counter arguments from TarodNet.
P.S. Sorry for the awful formatting of this reply - this forum response style is so wonky.
So, when you crit with True Strike, you only double the weapon's damage die?
Also applies to sneak attack? Oooh the rogues aren't going to be happy.
Nice to see agreement on #2 and #3. But #1 is actually related.
The sentence "The attack uses your spellcasting ability for the attack and damage rolls instead of using Strength or Dexterity" doesn't mean multiple damage rolls are made.
It means: "The attack uses your spellcasting ability for the attack roll, and the attack uses your spellcasting ability for the damage roll".
For comparison, Shillelagh uses the same wording:
I am both very careful and correct in my usage of the word implicitly here, anybody who has read the books knows that there are conventions that the books are written by but not always explicitly stated. For example it is implicitly understood that cantrips are learnt while levelled spells are prepared, generally there is no rule for this but looking at all spellcasting classes, such implicit definitions are clear to see.
Green-Flame blade explicitly states that the first target takes the normal effects of the attack, that means attack and damage rolls are resolved, it then says, "and you can cause green fire to leap from the target to a different creature of your choice that you can see within 5 feet of it." There is an order of operations here and it's clear that the effect of Green-Flame blade is explicitly stated as being separate to the weapon attack, nothing in True Strike at any point infers that the damage added by True Strike is separate to the weapon attack. And in fact what you're arguing for is that Green-Flame blade does THREE instances of damage at level 5.
If reading Green-Flame blade properly, the damage that "jumps" to the second creature, neither uses the words 'additional' or 'extra', as these words have specific usage within D&D similar too how Cantrips are learnt and Levelled Spells are prepared. Instead, Green-Flame Blade explicitly states the second creature "takes damage". However the word Extra is used for adding the 1d8 fire damage at level 5 to the weapon attack, because in this context, the 1d8 fire damage is part of the weapon attack, not separate too it.
The intended use of True Strike and RAW match, it has only one damage roll, EXTRA damage has never meant a separate damage roll and there is literally nowhere you can point to, to support that, meanwhile there are plenty of instances where EXTRA damage is shown to be part of the same damage roll as the attack, most famously SNEAK ATTACK. Sneak attack adds extra damage.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/free-rules/playing-the-game#CriticalHits
Sneak Attack critical hits because the Extra damage is part of the damage roll. In fact Critical hits are DESCRIBED as "Extra damage" themselves, are critical hits two instance of damage? no. Nobody sees it that way, thus we implicitly know the word Extra in regards to damage, unless otherwise stated, always means as part of the already existing damage roll.
Quote from ENDERxWIGGIN >>
Post 13's responder actually further supports argument 1 by openly saying the spell has two damage rolls. His/her argument clearly intends to somewhat (poorly) state that just because multiple dice are rolled, doesn't make it multiple damage rolls, but with zero supporting evidence. Simply quoting the spell actually assists in my argument, especially with the admission of multiple rolls.
No you have completely misunderstood my point. You claim that the rule uses the plural "rolls" because it is two separate damage rolls but that is false. It uses the plural "rolls" because you get to apply the bonus to both your attack roll and to your damage roll. It is two separate rolls but still only one single damage roll.
The rules are actually quite clear and consistent with the uses of "extra" and "increase" when it comes to damage calculations just as TarodNet said.
"Extra" is used when a feature add new dices to a calculation. Extra fire damage for a Flame Tongue, extra damage from Sneak Attack, extra damage from spells like Hunter's Mark, added secondary damage instances for GFB or BB and the extra damage from True Strike.
"Increases" is used when the number of dice a feature adds increase in number. More dices for a up-casted Fireball, more dices from Sneak Attack when you gain levels in Rogue or more dices for many cantrips when you go up in character level.
Neither of these changes the fact that a damage roll is one single roll. To become separate rolls a feature needs something that explicitly makes it so, like GFB and BB that does the damage to a separate creature or at a separate time. True Strike lacks any such function that makes it be separate rolls.
Agreed, this forum software is really poor. You have all the limitations of using BBCode but not the ability to actually see the code so that you can fix (or work with) the crap code that is auto added by the forum. Sometimes it feels like trying to edit a word document without having a screen to view it.
Click the
</>button when editing, and you can edit the html directly. Helps a little.Here is supporting evidence that multiple dice being rolled does not automatically make it multiple damage rolls.
I will admit that it does not prove that multiple dice couldn't be multiple damage rolls, but that is not what Post 13 claimed. What was being claimed was that the argument 'multiple dice automatically means multiple damage rolls' is a faulty argument.
People have been playing too much BG3. That IS how it works there, but BG3 doesn't completely simulate DND rules correctly.