A question regarding the Graze weapon mastery and any of the weapon cantrips - or furthermore, smites.
If i cast say, Green-flame Blade and miss, then fall back to graze, does the green-flame blade still happen? Furthermore, can I smite said creature on the graze "hit?"
Green-Flame Blade: You brandish the weapon used in the spell’s casting and make a melee attack with it against one creature within 5 feet of you. On a hit, the target suffers the weapon attack’s normal effects, 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. The second creature takes fire damage equal to your spellcasting ability modifier.
Graze: If your attack roll with a Greatsword misses a creature, you can deal damage to that creature equal to the ability modifier you used to make the attack roll. This damage is the same type dealt by the Greatsword, and the damage can be increased only by increasing the ability modifier.
The reason I ask, is that other weapon masteries seem to work fine in this case, because there's no ambiguity as far as the specifics on whether or not the graze mastery counts as a "hit" for the spells. Topple, for instance, requires the creature to be hit and then is knocked prone on a con save. I'd argue it does, otherwise the other weapon masteries are simply better for the interaction, and graze is trading utility for consistency. On the other hand, I see the logic in saying it doesn't work, due to getting a guaranteed weapon cantrip + smite on every attack, regardless of a hit.
I'm in a quandry on how to rule for my party after I was asked this question, and would like to know your input and reasoning.
Graze damage is triggered when you miss with an attack. The effects from spells like Green-Flame Blade, and smites such as Divine Smite, trigger when you hit with an attack. They do not work together.
Unfortunately, the game does not define a "hit" or "miss" explicitly. Does graze turn the attack into a hit, with reduced damage? What if the player is using a weapon with the flame tongue property. Does that damage happen?
Like, I understand that we're accustomed to what currently defines a hit and a miss. I understand that the graze is conditionally applied when at attack misses. But if the attack is then turned into a hit, I can't argue against it. In DND, does "hitting" a monster mean "to deal damage with a spell or weapon?" If so, then you hit it. if it instead means, "to roll at or above [the target's] AC," then I concede the point.
This also brings up the question about racial features like the Aasimar's Celestial Revelation. That happens when you deal damage with an attack. Does that apply? I feel the terms "hit" and "miss" need to be more acutely defined.
The vast majority of effects and spells clearly say that they are triggered "on a hit". Graze isn't a hit, it is a miss; but in missing you caused the enemy to do something that allowed it to still take damage. It is still a miss.
And the devs were quite clear in that nothing could raise the damage of that graze except the modifier of the ability used for the attack (no other spell, smite, or feature - just the ability modifier used to make the attack).
It is meant to allow those using the less damaging weapons to still do a token amount of damage (otherwise there would be no incentive to ever use those weapons). Gone are the requirements that certain classes only use blunt weapons, for example. Given the higher damage of other weapons and their master abilities, they had to give the lesser damaging weapons something to balance their use.
Inflict less damage on a hit, but be guaranteed to do at least some on a miss - that was the intent.
Unfortunately, the game does not define a "hit" or "miss" explicitly.
Yes it does, many times. Simply start at Attack Rolls and read the rest of the chapter. The very first sentence there, however, will give you all you need: "An attack roll determines whether an attack hits a target. An attack roll hits if the roll equals or exceeds the target’s Armor Class." Green-Flame Blade and Smites require you to "hit," thus they require your attack roll to "equal or exceed" the target's armor class. Conversely, Graze requires you to "miss," thus you need to not equal or exceed the target's armor class.
But the Aasimar's Celestial Revelation feature would apply? I am doing damage to it with an attack roll, despite it being a miss. The feature does not require it to hit, simply that it deals damage. The damage of the weapon is not being increased, the damage is happening due to another feature.
Yes, Celestial Revelation can trigger on Graze, because it triggers (once per turn) when you deal damage with an attack or spell, it does not require you to "hit" with an attack. It can also deal damage if you cast a spell that requires the target to succeed on a saving throw or take damage. Some spells require the target to make a saving throw and only take half damage if they succeed; Celestial Revelation could still trigger in that case, because even though they succeeded, they still took damage from a spell you cast.
Dealing damage is not the same as landing a "hit." A "hit" or "miss" are only terms that revolve around attack rolls.
Edit: Though honestly, Celestial Revelation being able to trigger on Graze is a bit of a grey area, and would be up to DM discretion. Technically speaking, I'd venture that the attack is not dealing damage; the Graze property is dealing damage, because the attack missed (and therefore didn't deal damage.)
I'm going to concede the point here, but I will also say i really dislike this interaction from a flavor and realism point of view. Being able to circumvent defensive layers and offensive tactics like this seems cheesy. In the same way that technically, according to this interaction, poisons cannot be applied by graze. My intuition says that you hit the creature, with a glancing blow. The rules apparently disagree, and the damage is from a mysterious unknown source.
Poisons can absolutely be applied by Graze. The section on poisons in the 2024 Dungeon Master's Guide says that "a creature that takes piercing or slashing damage from an object coated with the poison is exposed to its effects". It doesn't say that it has to be on a hit, just that it has to take damage from the weapon, which it does in the case of a miss with a Graze weapon.
The fact that you can poison with graze only makes me more irate that other "on hit" effects do not happen. because realistically - you are hitting them.
Poisons can absolutely be applied by Graze. The section on poisons in the 2024 Dungeon Master's Guide says that "a creature that takes piercing or slashing damage from an object coated with the poison is exposed to its effects". It doesn't say that it has to be on a hit, just that it has to take damage from the weapon, which it does in the case of a miss with a Graze weapon.
I agree with you (EDIT: not sure at this moment :( see discussion below), but I'm still wondering if the text in blue should prevent the interaction (same for the previous example with Celestial Revelation):
If your attack roll with this weapon misses a creature, you can deal damage to that creature equal to the ability modifier you used to make the attack roll. This damage is the same type dealt by the weapon, and the damage can be increased only by increasing the ability modifier.
I believe the poison issue is more about poor wording in the description of poisons, which is completely removed from the weapons sections. I believe they didn't think of that interaction (graze and poison), and I would rule that the specific rule within graze stating, "and the damage can be increased only by increasing the ability modifier" rules out the addition of any other damage.
Afterall, it is a miss. The damage you are causing by graze is not from contact with the weapon, and an injury poison can't be delivered if you missed. Even though the poison description does not specifically say a 'hit' is required, it stands to reason that the poison has to make contact with a wound (in the case of Injury poison), and make contact with skin (in the case of contact poison), etc.
Personally (and this is a topic for another thread), I think the entire issue of Weapon Mastery was a mistake for them to include. If they wanted certain classes to get a boost to damage, or have other effects (pushing, pulling, knocking prone, slowing, etc.) they could have implemented them in a better way. One longtime suggestion was to take the Battlemaster maneuvers and give them to all fighters, that would have been a better solution (they could even have expanded that to any other class they wanted), and it would have solved the problem without the massive confusion surrounding Nick, Vex, and Graze. I just ran a one-shot yesterday, and trying to keep track who hit with the Vex weapon and therefore got advantage, and who they hit (since the advantage would only be against them), in a large fight was a nightmare.
Poisons can absolutely be applied by Graze. The section on poisons in the 2024 Dungeon Master's Guide says that "a creature that takes piercing or slashing damage from an object coated with the poison is exposed to its effects". It doesn't say that it has to be on a hit, just that it has to take damage from the weapon, which it does in the case of a miss with a Graze weapon.
I agree with you, but I'm still wondering if the text in blue should prevent the interaction (same for the previous example with Celestial Revelation):
If your attack roll with this weapon misses a creature, you can deal damage to that creature equal to the ability modifier you used to make the attack roll. This damage is the same type dealt by the weapon, and the damage can be increased only by increasing the ability modifier.
I don't see why that section would prevent it. The Graze damage and the poison damage are coming from separate sources (the weapon, and the poison coating the weapon)
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)
Afterall, it is a miss. The damage you are causing by graze is not from contact with the weapon
Then what is it from? The damage is explicitly the same type as dealt by the weapon, and calling the Mastery "Graze" absolutely implies that the weapon has made contact with the target -- just not the solid contact you intended
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)
In my opinion, you cannot apply a weapon poison with Graze. Graze specifies that when your attack roll with this weapon misses, "YOU can deal damage" of a certain damage type.
The weapon is not causing this damage. You are causing this damage with your special skills that you've acquired via your mastery of that weapon type. Exactly how you deliver that damage is just flavor that you can make up on the fly. Maybe you scratch the monster with the fingernails of the hand that holds the weapon, who knows?
Just in case, you might've missed the Edit I added to my last post
But yes, Armor of Agathys would not trigger from taking damage from Graze; AoA requires you to be hit for it to trigger.
The issue there is the wording on AoA, really, but you can try to thread that needle by saying the cold damage requires a solid, forceful touch from a handheld weapon to trigger (it doesn't work on ranged attacks from within 5 feet either, for example), and Graze is just a glancing, light touch
Now, would the Graze damage from a greatsword still be from a more forceful touch than, say, someone laying a hand on your shoulder and casting inflict wounds or whatever? Wellllll.....
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)
A question regarding the Graze weapon mastery and any of the weapon cantrips - or furthermore, smites.
If i cast say, Green-flame Blade and miss, then fall back to graze, does the green-flame blade still happen? Furthermore, can I smite said creature on the graze "hit?"
Green-Flame Blade: You brandish the weapon used in the spell’s casting and make a melee attack with it against one creature within 5 feet of you. On a hit, the target suffers the weapon attack’s normal effects, 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. The second creature takes fire damage equal to your spellcasting ability modifier.
Graze: If your attack roll with a Greatsword misses a creature, you can deal damage to that creature equal to the ability modifier you used to make the attack roll. This damage is the same type dealt by the Greatsword, and the damage can be increased only by increasing the ability modifier.
The reason I ask, is that other weapon masteries seem to work fine in this case, because there's no ambiguity as far as the specifics on whether or not the graze mastery counts as a "hit" for the spells. Topple, for instance, requires the creature to be hit and then is knocked prone on a con save. I'd argue it does, otherwise the other weapon masteries are simply better for the interaction, and graze is trading utility for consistency. On the other hand, I see the logic in saying it doesn't work, due to getting a guaranteed weapon cantrip + smite on every attack, regardless of a hit.
I'm in a quandry on how to rule for my party after I was asked this question, and would like to know your input and reasoning.
Graze damage is triggered when you miss with an attack. The effects from spells like Green-Flame Blade, and smites such as Divine Smite, trigger when you hit with an attack.
They do not work together.
Unfortunately, the game does not define a "hit" or "miss" explicitly. Does graze turn the attack into a hit, with reduced damage? What if the player is using a weapon with the flame tongue property. Does that damage happen?
Like, I understand that we're accustomed to what currently defines a hit and a miss. I understand that the graze is conditionally applied when at attack misses. But if the attack is then turned into a hit, I can't argue against it. In DND, does "hitting" a monster mean "to deal damage with a spell or weapon?" If so, then you hit it. if it instead means, "to roll at or above [the target's] AC," then I concede the point.
This also brings up the question about racial features like the Aasimar's Celestial Revelation. That happens when you deal damage with an attack. Does that apply? I feel the terms "hit" and "miss" need to be more acutely defined.
The vast majority of effects and spells clearly say that they are triggered "on a hit". Graze isn't a hit, it is a miss; but in missing you caused the enemy to do something that allowed it to still take damage. It is still a miss.
And the devs were quite clear in that nothing could raise the damage of that graze except the modifier of the ability used for the attack (no other spell, smite, or feature - just the ability modifier used to make the attack).
It is meant to allow those using the less damaging weapons to still do a token amount of damage (otherwise there would be no incentive to ever use those weapons). Gone are the requirements that certain classes only use blunt weapons, for example. Given the higher damage of other weapons and their master abilities, they had to give the lesser damaging weapons something to balance their use.
Inflict less damage on a hit, but be guaranteed to do at least some on a miss - that was the intent.
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
Yes it does, many times. Simply start at Attack Rolls and read the rest of the chapter. The very first sentence there, however, will give you all you need: "An attack roll determines whether an attack hits a target. An attack roll hits if the roll equals or exceeds the target’s Armor Class."
Green-Flame Blade and Smites require you to "hit," thus they require your attack roll to "equal or exceed" the target's armor class. Conversely, Graze requires you to "miss," thus you need to not equal or exceed the target's armor class.
But the Aasimar's Celestial Revelation feature would apply? I am doing damage to it with an attack roll, despite it being a miss. The feature does not require it to hit, simply that it deals damage. The damage of the weapon is not being increased, the damage is happening due to another feature.
Yes, Celestial Revelation can trigger on Graze, because it triggers (once per turn) when you deal damage with an attack or spell, it does not require you to "hit" with an attack. It can also deal damage if you cast a spell that requires the target to succeed on a saving throw or take damage. Some spells require the target to make a saving throw and only take half damage if they succeed; Celestial Revelation could still trigger in that case, because even though they succeeded, they still took damage from a spell you cast.
Dealing damage is not the same as landing a "hit." A "hit" or "miss" are only terms that revolve around attack rolls.
Edit: Though honestly, Celestial Revelation being able to trigger on Graze is a bit of a grey area, and would be up to DM discretion. Technically speaking, I'd venture that the attack is not dealing damage; the Graze property is dealing damage, because the attack missed (and therefore didn't deal damage.)
I know it might seem like I'm beating a dead horse here, but I'm trying very hard to make sure I'm 100% about this interaction.
That last statement would indicate that Armor of Agathys would NOT trigger if damaged only by the graze feature, as the caster was not "hit?"
Just in case, you might've missed the Edit I added to my last post
But yes, Armor of Agathys would not trigger from taking damage from Graze; AoA requires you to be hit for it to trigger.
I'm going to concede the point here, but I will also say i really dislike this interaction from a flavor and realism point of view. Being able to circumvent defensive layers and offensive tactics like this seems cheesy. In the same way that technically, according to this interaction, poisons cannot be applied by graze. My intuition says that you hit the creature, with a glancing blow. The rules apparently disagree, and the damage is from a mysterious unknown source.
Poisons can absolutely be applied by Graze. The section on poisons in the 2024 Dungeon Master's Guide says that "a creature that takes piercing or slashing damage from an object coated with the poison is exposed to its effects". It doesn't say that it has to be on a hit, just that it has to take damage from the weapon, which it does in the case of a miss with a Graze weapon.
pronouns: he/she/they
The fact that you can poison with graze only makes me more irate that other "on hit" effects do not happen. because realistically - you are hitting them.
I agree with you (EDIT: not sure at this moment :( see discussion below), but I'm still wondering if the text in blue should prevent the interaction (same for the previous example with Celestial Revelation):
Fair point, though most of the poisons in the DMG have other effects in addition to (or even instead of) damage that should still apply.
pronouns: he/she/they
I believe the poison issue is more about poor wording in the description of poisons, which is completely removed from the weapons sections. I believe they didn't think of that interaction (graze and poison), and I would rule that the specific rule within graze stating, "and the damage can be increased only by increasing the ability modifier" rules out the addition of any other damage.
Afterall, it is a miss. The damage you are causing by graze is not from contact with the weapon, and an injury poison can't be delivered if you missed. Even though the poison description does not specifically say a 'hit' is required, it stands to reason that the poison has to make contact with a wound (in the case of Injury poison), and make contact with skin (in the case of contact poison), etc.
Personally (and this is a topic for another thread), I think the entire issue of Weapon Mastery was a mistake for them to include. If they wanted certain classes to get a boost to damage, or have other effects (pushing, pulling, knocking prone, slowing, etc.) they could have implemented them in a better way. One longtime suggestion was to take the Battlemaster maneuvers and give them to all fighters, that would have been a better solution (they could even have expanded that to any other class they wanted), and it would have solved the problem without the massive confusion surrounding Nick, Vex, and Graze. I just ran a one-shot yesterday, and trying to keep track who hit with the Vex weapon and therefore got advantage, and who they hit (since the advantage would only be against them), in a large fight was a nightmare.
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
I don't see why that section would prevent it. The Graze damage and the poison damage are coming from separate sources (the weapon, and the poison coating the weapon)
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)
Then what is it from? The damage is explicitly the same type as dealt by the weapon, and calling the Mastery "Graze" absolutely implies that the weapon has made contact with the target -- just not the solid contact you intended
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)
In my opinion, you cannot apply a weapon poison with Graze. Graze specifies that when your attack roll with this weapon misses, "YOU can deal damage" of a certain damage type.
The weapon is not causing this damage. You are causing this damage with your special skills that you've acquired via your mastery of that weapon type. Exactly how you deliver that damage is just flavor that you can make up on the fly. Maybe you scratch the monster with the fingernails of the hand that holds the weapon, who knows?
The issue there is the wording on AoA, really, but you can try to thread that needle by saying the cold damage requires a solid, forceful touch from a handheld weapon to trigger (it doesn't work on ranged attacks from within 5 feet either, for example), and Graze is just a glancing, light touch
Now, would the Graze damage from a greatsword still be from a more forceful touch than, say, someone laying a hand on your shoulder and casting inflict wounds or whatever? Wellllll.....
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)
I don't let any bonus or extra damage increase the damage dealt via Graze Mastery.