While Graze is definitely not a "hit," as it is not a successful attack roll, it might not be accurate - RAW - to say you couldn't add other damage sources to the damage caused by Graze, provided those damage sources in no way require a successful attack roll.
While Graze does say "If your attack ... misses a creature, you can deal damage to that creature equal to the ability modifier you used to make the attack roll ... and the damage can be increased only by increasing the ability modifier," this can be interpreted as the Graze damage itself cannot be increased - meaning any modifiers from magic weapons or the like can't increase it - rather than that you can't add any secondary sources of damage whatsoever. The argument can be made that secondary sources of damage - such as Basic Poison - are not increasing Graze damage, rather applying a secondary, extra source of damage.
How a DM wants to rule this is of course up to them at the table, but personally I can't think of anything beyond poison that can apply a secondary source of damage (on an attack) without specifying that they require a successful attack/hit (the aforementioned Celestial Radiance does require you to deal damage with an attack, so I do not think would apply), so allowing it probably wouldn't hurt much, as it's a pretty niche case. Most characters that use a greatsword don't tend to do a lot of poisoning, anyway.
I don't disagree, but I don't think it's that simple. For example, if you have Hex active and hit a creature with a weapon attack, Hex doesn't increase your weapon damage; it adds an extra d6 of Necrotic damage to the damage being dealt. By the same concept, Basic Poison doesn't increase your weapon damage - and wouldn't increase the Slashing damage caused by Graze, either - it adds an extra d4 of Poison damage.
I agree that it's the same damage "instance," but that doesn't necessarily mean it is specifically "increasing" the original damage dealt. Both interpretations have validity, and I think would really be up to the DM's call.
I think we should be able to look at this pretty simply. If the effect requires you to hit, then graze won't help you. If the effect requires you to do damage to someone (forcing a concentration check for instance) then graze can still make that happen even if you miss.
I think we should be able to look at this pretty simply. If the effect requires you to hit, then graze won't help you. If the effect requires you to do damage to someone (forcing a concentration check for instance) then graze can still make that happen even if you miss.
Yes of course, and I don't think there's really any disagreement there; that's all pretty clear. At this point it's simply a question of whether the line "and the damage can be increased only by increasing the ability modifier" prevents additional damage that doesn't directly increase the ability-modifier-damage caused by Graze from being applicable, such as from Basic Poison.
As far as I'm aware, poisons are the only thing that could potentially allow you to add more damage, as everything else specifically requires you to either hit, or "deal damage from an attack," but it's a valid question with no easy answer.
Hmm, I took that to mean that under normal circumstances, a greatsword uses STR as the ability for attacks. If you use a greatsword, and you have 18 STR, your ability modifier is +4, so graze does 4 damage. If your STR goes up to 20, then your ability modifier has increased to +5, meaning that graze does 5 damage.
For the "Graze damage can't be increased" crowd... do you not add Rage damage to it then?
Rage Damage. When you make an attack using Strength—with either a weapon or an Unarmed Strike—and deal damage to the target, you gain a bonus to the damage that increases as you gain levels as a Barbarian, as shown in the Rage Damage column of the Barbarian Features table.
Graze
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.
These two things would seem to be directly contradictory. Graze says the only way to increase the damage is by increasing the ability mod. Rage says you did damage with a STR-based attack, so you add Rage damage.
Whatever answer you pick, it contradicts the RAW on the other
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)
Those two are definitely mutually exclusive; you did not deal damage with the Strength-based attack, you missed the attack. Graze comes after the conclusion of the attack. Rage Damage cannot apply to Graze, as Rage Damage requires you to deal damage with the attack.
Those two are definitely mutually exclusive; you did not deal damage with the Strength-based attack, you missed the attack. Graze comes after the conclusion of the attack. Rage Damage cannot apply to Graze, as Rage Damage requires you to deal damage with the attack.
That's one way to try and thread that needle, but nothing in Graze says the damage comes after the attack, or that it's completely separate from the attack. In fact, it implies the opposite, since it's tied to making an attack roll
Rage damage applies when you make a STR-based attack, and then deal damage. Both those conditions are satisfied by Graze -- you made an attack, and then dealt damage
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)
That's one way to try and thread that needle, but nothing in Graze says the damage comes after the attack, or that it's completely separate from the attack. In fact, it implies the opposite, since it's tied to making an attack roll
Rage damage applies when you make a STR-based attack, and then deal damage. Both those conditions are satisfied by Graze -- you made an attack, and then dealt damage
"the damage can be increased only by increasing the ability modifier."
This is explicit. Rage cannot increase the damage dealt by the graze weapon mastery.
That's one way to try and thread that needle, but nothing in Graze says the damage comes after the attack, or that it's completely separate from the attack. In fact, it implies the opposite, since it's tied to making an attack roll
Rage damage applies when you make a STR-based attack, and then deal damage. Both those conditions are satisfied by Graze -- you made an attack, and then dealt damage
"the damage can be increased only by increasing the ability modifier."
This is explicit. Rage cannot increase the damage dealt by the graze weapon mastery.
Rage is very explicit too. Specific beats specific now?
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)
That's one way to try and thread that needle, but nothing in Graze says the damage comes after the attack, or that it's completely separate from the attack. In fact, it implies the opposite, since it's tied to making an attack roll
Rage damage applies when you make a STR-based attack, and then deal damage. Both those conditions are satisfied by Graze -- you made an attack, and then dealt damage
"the damage can be increased only by increasing the ability modifier."
This is explicit. Rage cannot increase the damage dealt by the graze weapon mastery.
Rage is very explicit too. Specific beats specific now?
Let's turn this around. If the designers wanted to exclude all other damage now and in the future from increasing damage dealt by graze, how would they write the rule differently than the way they did?
That's one way to try and thread that needle, but nothing in Graze says the damage comes after the attack, or that it's completely separate from the attack. In fact, it implies the opposite, since it's tied to making an attack roll
Rage damage applies when you make a STR-based attack, and then deal damage. Both those conditions are satisfied by Graze -- you made an attack, and then dealt damage
"the damage can be increased only by increasing the ability modifier."
This is explicit. Rage cannot increase the damage dealt by the graze weapon mastery.
Rage is very explicit too. Specific beats specific now?
Let's turn this around. If the designers wanted to exclude all other damage now and in the future from increasing damage dealt by graze, how would they write the rule differently than the way they did?
First, they could avoid saying you "deal damage" to the creature, since dealing damage is a trigger for all kinds of effects and features in the game
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)
The argument can be made that secondary sources of damage - such as Basic Poison - are not increasing Graze damage, rather applying a secondary, extra source of damage.
Since the weapon itself does not cause the Graze damage, the Basic Poison will not work with Graze effects:
A creature that takes Piercing or Slashing damage from the poisoned weapon or ammunition takes an extra 1d4 Poison damage
Graze
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.
For the "Graze damage can't be increased" crowd... do you not add Rage damage to it then?
Rage Damage. When you make an attack using Strength—with either a weapon or an Unarmed Strike—and deal damage to the target, you gain a bonus to the damage that increases as you gain levels as a Barbarian, as shown in the Rage Damage column of the Barbarian Features table.
Graze
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.
These two things would seem to be directly contradictory. Graze says the only way to increase the damage is by increasing the ability mod. Rage says you did damage with a STR-based attack, so you add Rage damage.
Whatever answer you pick, it contradicts the RAW on the other
In my opinion, Rage damage DOES work with Graze.
The reason has to do with the exact words used. Rage grants a "bonus" to damage, it does NOT "increase" damage. Graze prevents Graze damage from being "increased".
For example, suppose a low level Barbarian has a +3 strength modifier and a +2 Rage Damage value. The Graze mastery prevents anything from changing the 3 damage into 5 damage. But it doesn't prevent the possibility of the attack yielding 3 damage + 2 damage.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I don't think I would either. Graze is a consolation prize for missing, not a second (automatically successful) try to land a hit.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I wish I had said that, I like that wording, "Graze is a consolation prize for missing, not a second (automatically successful) try to land a hit."
Well said.
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
While Graze is definitely not a "hit," as it is not a successful attack roll, it might not be accurate - RAW - to say you couldn't add other damage sources to the damage caused by Graze, provided those damage sources in no way require a successful attack roll.
While Graze does say "If your attack ... misses a creature, you can deal damage to that creature equal to the ability modifier you used to make the attack roll ... and the damage can be increased only by increasing the ability modifier," this can be interpreted as the Graze damage itself cannot be increased - meaning any modifiers from magic weapons or the like can't increase it - rather than that you can't add any secondary sources of damage whatsoever.
The argument can be made that secondary sources of damage - such as Basic Poison - are not increasing Graze damage, rather applying a secondary, extra source of damage.
How a DM wants to rule this is of course up to them at the table, but personally I can't think of anything beyond poison that can apply a secondary source of damage (on an attack) without specifying that they require a successful attack/hit (the aforementioned Celestial Radiance does require you to deal damage with an attack, so I do not think would apply), so allowing it probably wouldn't hurt much, as it's a pretty niche case. Most characters that use a greatsword don't tend to do a lot of poisoning, anyway.
To me extra damage is not a secondary but same damage instance, hence why it is doubled on a Critical Hit.
I don't disagree, but I don't think it's that simple.
For example, if you have Hex active and hit a creature with a weapon attack, Hex doesn't increase your weapon damage; it adds an extra d6 of Necrotic damage to the damage being dealt. By the same concept, Basic Poison doesn't increase your weapon damage - and wouldn't increase the Slashing damage caused by Graze, either - it adds an extra d4 of Poison damage.
I agree that it's the same damage "instance," but that doesn't necessarily mean it is specifically "increasing" the original damage dealt. Both interpretations have validity, and I think would really be up to the DM's call.
I think we should be able to look at this pretty simply. If the effect requires you to hit, then graze won't help you. If the effect requires you to do damage to someone (forcing a concentration check for instance) then graze can still make that happen even if you miss.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Yes of course, and I don't think there's really any disagreement there; that's all pretty clear.
At this point it's simply a question of whether the line "and the damage can be increased only by increasing the ability modifier" prevents additional damage that doesn't directly increase the ability-modifier-damage caused by Graze from being applicable, such as from Basic Poison.
As far as I'm aware, poisons are the only thing that could potentially allow you to add more damage, as everything else specifically requires you to either hit, or "deal damage from an attack," but it's a valid question with no easy answer.
Hmm, I took that to mean that under normal circumstances, a greatsword uses STR as the ability for attacks. If you use a greatsword, and you have 18 STR, your ability modifier is +4, so graze does 4 damage. If your STR goes up to 20, then your ability modifier has increased to +5, meaning that graze does 5 damage.
I would leave it at that.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
For the "Graze damage can't be increased" crowd... do you not add Rage damage to it then?
These two things would seem to be directly contradictory. Graze says the only way to increase the damage is by increasing the ability mod. Rage says you did damage with a STR-based attack, so you add Rage damage.
Whatever answer you pick, it contradicts the RAW on the other
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)
Those two are definitely mutually exclusive; you did not deal damage with the Strength-based attack, you missed the attack. Graze comes after the conclusion of the attack. Rage Damage cannot apply to Graze, as Rage Damage requires you to deal damage with the attack.
That's one way to try and thread that needle, but nothing in Graze says the damage comes after the attack, or that it's completely separate from the attack. In fact, it implies the opposite, since it's tied to making an attack roll
Rage damage applies when you make a STR-based attack, and then deal damage. Both those conditions are satisfied by Graze -- you made an attack, and then dealt damage
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)
"the damage can be increased only by increasing the ability modifier."
This is explicit. Rage cannot increase the damage dealt by the graze weapon mastery.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I bet whoever wrote that line in the Graze description really thought it would prevent arguments like this…
pronouns: he/she/they
I joined this thread agreeing with you, and now I'm shifting to disagreeing with my own agreement :(
An extra cheese in your BIG MAC increase the quantity of cheese in it.
Rage is very explicit too. Specific beats specific now?
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)
Let's turn this around. If the designers wanted to exclude all other damage now and in the future from increasing damage dealt by graze, how would they write the rule differently than the way they did?
"Not all those who wander are lost"
First, they could avoid saying you "deal damage" to the creature, since dealing damage is a trigger for all kinds of effects and features in the game
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)
Since the weapon itself does not cause the Graze damage, the Basic Poison will not work with Graze effects:
In my opinion, Rage damage DOES work with Graze.
The reason has to do with the exact words used. Rage grants a "bonus" to damage, it does NOT "increase" damage. Graze prevents Graze damage from being "increased".
For example, suppose a low level Barbarian has a +3 strength modifier and a +2 Rage Damage value. The Graze mastery prevents anything from changing the 3 damage into 5 damage. But it doesn't prevent the possibility of the attack yielding 3 damage + 2 damage.