ok, well it looks like I don't have anything else to add that I haven't already said. If you want to make the case that 4 + 2 is not an increase over 4 because you prefer to call it a bonus instead, then that's all you.
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.
In this case Rage is the general rule (stating that Rage damage is added whenever damage is inflicted by a STR weapon or unarmed strike). Graze is the specific rule (when the damage is from Graze nothing more gets added).
You are free to rule whatever you wish at your table, but it is pretty clear that RAW and the dev's RAI was to have Graze inflict a tiny amount of damage when you would normally inflict none, and even goes so far as to specify that the damage cannot be increased above that of the ability score modifier used by the attack. Not really sure how they could have made it any clearer.
Graze is not to allow a backdoor way to pile in damage automatically every round, it is meant to provide a tiny bit of damage on what would otherwise be none.
In this case Rage is the general rule (stating that Rage damage is added whenever damage is inflicted by a STR weapon or unarmed strike). Graze is the specific rule (when the damage is from Graze nothing more gets added).
That's really not how that works
I could just as easily declare that Graze is the general rule (since it's a Weapon Mastery available to anyone with the right class/feat) and Rage is the specific rule (only applies to barbarians) that overrides it
They are both specific rules that override the general rules for weapon damage. That's the problem
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)
Rage damage doesn't work with Graze simply because of the order of operations in executing an attack. (Though also because it very much is increasing the weapon damage, unlike Basic Poison which - as mentioned earlier - adds a different type of damage rather than a direct increase.)
The final step of Making an Attack is as follows: "Resolve the Attack. Make the attack roll, as detailed earlier in this chapter. On a hit, you roll damage unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage." You make the attack roll and apply its effects, after which the attack is resolved. If you hit, you roll damage - which is the damage that Rage damage can increase - at which point the attack is Resolved. If you miss, the attack is Resolved.
Graze happens after an attack misses - and is therefore resolved - but Rage damage happens "when you make an attack and deal damage."
ok, well it looks like I don't have anything else to add that I haven't already said. If you want to make the case that 4 + 2 is not an increase over 4 because you prefer to call it a bonus instead, then that's all you.
For what it's worth, there have been many threads over the years which have debated similar issues arising from the use of the word "bonus" as opposed to something being increased. Calculating your final movement speed after simultaneously applying multiple separate effects which are worded in various different ways comes to mind. Another involved attempting certain combos which included the Shillelagh spell and how much damage was actually done given the precise wording involved. And so on. There are more accurate examples but I'm not great at linking back to old threads for the specifics. The point I'm making is that the particular wording that is chosen by the author is sometimes mechanically significant (either intentionally or unintentionally).
Graze happens after an attack misses - and is therefore resolved - but Rage damage happens "when you make an attack and deal damage."
Again, nothing in Graze says the damage happens after the attack is resolved
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.
You can view it as implied, and even make a case for it being RAI, but it doesn't say "after your attack misses, you can deal damage equal to the ability modifier..."
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)
We'll have to agree to disagree. How the attack rules read (to me), if an attack misses, it's resolved. Therefore Graze has to happen after the attack, because if the attack misses, it's over; that's the final step of making an attack. Furthermore - and perhaps most damning - "used" is past tense. The use of the word "used" in the text of Graze implies (again, to me, everyone can of course play as they so choose) that the attack was already completed.
We'll have to agree to disagree. How the attack rules read (to me), if an attack misses, it's resolved. Therefore Graze has to happen after the attack, because if the attack misses, it's over; that's the final step of making an attack. Furthermore - and perhaps most damning - "used" is past tense. The use of the word "used" in the text of Graze implies (again, to me, everyone can of course play as they so choose) that the attack was already completed.
I'm going to point something out here that I think will only add confusion, but in a spell like Hellish Rebuke it says "...damage on a failed save or half as much damage on a successful one." Failed. Past tense. I think the wording here is simply because in the natural progression of the game, the attack roll has already happened, but the damage and resolution has not. At least, not yet. Furthermore, I'd say I have a fairly good case in arguing that graze happens as part of the attack, not after it has resolved.
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?
Also a fair point. I'm not sure I can really make this any clearer with a one-line rule that disambiguates this. Perhaps, "this damage cannot trigger or use any other features or abilities" or some such. As it is at the moment, it's woefully unclear what it can and cannot interact with, and that's kind of the point of the thread. Yes, I started with specifics, but the way graze, specifically, happens, is dreadful.
Let's assume it works the way you're arguing. The weapon mastery is borderline worthless, especially as characters grow in power. It will flatline (at best) at around level 5-6 for fighters, 8 or so for any other character who cares. It is actually likely to provide LESS value as the characters get higher levels from there, as HP of creatures grow, magic items are found, and other features are in use. and it already started at circa 1.2 DPR. the topple, cleave, vex, etc. properties GAIN value as the character gets stronger. RAI, i don't like that for my players. I want them to feel powerful. I want them to be able to have the "eureka" moment of thinking, "I know I did less damage than expected, but at least I can smite/poison/rage damage the creature," and get just a little more out of this feature.
We'll have to agree to disagree. How the attack rules read (to me), if an attack misses, it's resolved. Therefore Graze has to happen after the attack, because if the attack misses, it's over; that's the final step of making an attack. Furthermore - and perhaps most damning - "used" is past tense. The use of the word "used" in the text of Graze implies (again, to me, everyone can of course play as they so choose) that the attack was already completed.
Mechanically, the result of the attack obviously has to be determined before you can apply any effects that happen on a hit or a miss -- otherwise you wouldn't know whether to apply it
That doesn't mean the effect itself happens after the hit or the miss
Look at any effect that happens on a hit, like a smite. You have to determine whether the result of the attack is a hit before applying the smite, but that doesn't mean the smite happens after the attack
As for the past tense thing... again, you have to have already made the attack roll before you know whether Graze can even be applied. That's not a rules statement, it's a physics statement
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)
Let's say I attacked with a flame tongue greatsword and missed. Would I get to pick between slashing and fire damage when choosing the type of damage done by the graze effect?
Let's say I attacked with a flame tongue greatsword and missed. Would I get to pick between slashing and fire damage when choosing the type of damage done by the graze effect?
That's a really good question. I think as a DM I would rule that yes, you would get to choose -- it fits the flavor of both the magic weapon and the seeming intent behind the Mastery, and I don't see anything that would shut it down in the RAW. (Just to bring this full circle back to the original point of the thread, I'd say the same for a Graze / true strike combo)
While holding this magic weapon, you can take a Bonus Action and use a command word to cause flames to engulf the damage-dealing part of the weapon. These flames shed Bright Light in a 40-foot radius and Dim Light for an additional 40 feet. While the weapon is ablaze, it deals an extra 2d6 Fire damage on a hit.
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.
If you think the RAI is that "the same type dealt by the weapon" means only the base damage type, that's reasonable too
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 say I attacked with a flame tongue greatsword and missed. Would I get to pick between slashing and fire damage when choosing the type of damage done by the graze effect?
That's a really good question. I think as a DM I would rule that yes, you would get to choose -- it fits the flavor of both the magic weapon and the seeming intent behind the Mastery, and I don't see anything that would shut it down in the RAW. (Just to bring this full circle back to the original point of the thread, I'd say the same for a Graze / true strike combo)
While holding this magic weapon, you can take a Bonus Action and use a command word to cause flames to engulf the damage-dealing part of the weapon. These flames shed Bright Light in a 40-foot radius and Dim Light for an additional 40 feet. While the weapon is ablaze, it deals an extra 2d6 Fire damage on a hit.
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.
If you think the RAI is that "the same type dealt by the weapon" means only the base damage type, that's reasonable too
In my case, your RAI proposal is how I'd rule it. Also for True Strike.
When your boss at McDo gives you a salary bonus, your income increase.
While receiving a pay bonus might increase your income, your base salary very explicitly has not been increased. Many paystubs make a point to break this down as two separate sources of income for various reasons. The use of the word "bonus" in the context of this thread is mechanically significant.
Rage damage doesn't work with Graze simply because of the order of operations in executing an attack. (Though also because it very much is increasing the weapon damage, unlike Basic Poison which - as mentioned earlier - adds a different type of damage rather than a direct increase.)
The final step of Making an Attack is as follows: "Resolve the Attack. Make the attack roll, as detailed earlier in this chapter. On a hit, you roll damage unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage." You make the attack roll and apply its effects, after which the attack is resolved. If you hit, you roll damage - which is the damage that Rage damage can increase - at which point the attack is Resolved. If you miss, the attack is Resolved.
Graze happens after an attack misses - and is therefore resolved - but Rage damage happens "when you make an attack and deal damage."
There are several problems with these statements.
First, Rage damage does not increase weapon damage. If it did, the text would say so.
Second, there is no issue with "order of operations". Events happen in this game when they are triggered. We must simply read the text to determine exactly what the trigger is for the event and whether or not that trigger actually occurs. The general rule is that when you resolve an attack you must do some housekeeping on a hit (roll for damage) as part of the process for resolving the attack. The Graze mastery property is a specific rule that adds some additional housekeeping that must be done on a miss as part of the process for resolving the attack. Another way to look at it is that the Graze effect is a "special effect" that is caused by this attack ("Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage.").
Third, Basic Poison doesn't work with Graze, as mentioned earlier.
Next, there's nothing that indicates that Graze happens somehow after and separately from the attack. The missed attack is what triggers the Graze and that gets resolved immediately while the attack is being resolved. You can't save it up for later. You can't, like, claim that you want to apply your Graze damage now on an attack that missed an hour ago or something.
Lastly, the claim: "If you hit, you roll damage - which is the damage that Rage damage can increase" . . . is not supported by the text.
Graze
If your attack roll with this weapon misses a creature, you can deal damage to that creature . . . the damage can be increased only by increasing the ability modifier
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
The only real argument that could be made against applying Rage damage to the Graze attack would be a similar argument that I made earlier about why the Basic Poison does not work for Graze attacks -- because you are dealing the Graze damage instead of the weapon. In doing so, you would also have to argue that this damage is dealt totally outside of the context of the attack in question, which doesn't really make any sense as I explained above. But if we look carefully at what actually triggers the Rage Damage, we see that it doesn't care if the damage is dealt by the weapon (unlike the Basic Poison, which DOES care about that). The Rage Damage only cares about whether a Strength-based attack is made and that (you) deal damage as a consequence of that attack.
Although Graze damage is not dealt by the weapon that was used in the attack, the graze damage is dealt as a consequence of that attack.
So, in this case, during the process of resolving the attack we apply the Graze damage, which is its own thing and cannot be increased . . . and we also apply the Rage Damage bonus which is its own separate thing. This is because both of these effects have been triggered because this attack meets the requirements for triggering both of them.
To me Graze damage is the same type dealt by the weapon table list normally do, not extra damage type from magic weapon.
Damage. The table lists the amount of damage a weapon deals when an attacker hits with it as well as the type of that damage.
Yeah, I just have trouble reconciling that in my head with your flaming sword grazing a target for a little bit of damage, and it not being allowing to do fire damage
The True Strike case is even more clear cut to me, since the spell can actually change the weapon's base damage type
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)
Missed a lot over night and don't think it's really worth the effort of nitpicking replies at this point. The one thing I will dispute is that Rage damage absolutely increases weapon damage, and the text does say so. "When you make an attack ... with a weapon ... and deal damage, you gain a bonus to the damage." If you want to be pedantic about the word "bonus" being used instead of "increase" rather than treating them synonymously, you're of course welcome to do so, but you've got to admit that is an incredible reach.
Otherwise, at this point, we're all just going to keep going in circles arguing obtuse semantics. Unfortunately, many of these things are written in vague and inconsistent ways that leave them open to multiple avenues of interpretation, so reaching a consensus on RAW just isn't going to happen. It's become very obvious there's no clear cut answer, so - as Texas says - everyone should interpret it as simply as you can at your table, and rule how you want as a DM.
To me Graze damage is the same type dealt by the weapon table list normally do, not extra damage type from magic weapon.
Damage. The table lists the amount of damage a weapon deals when an attacker hits with it as well as the type of that damage.
Yeah, I just have trouble reconciling that in my head with your flaming sword grazing a target for a little bit of damage, and it not being allowing to do fire damage
The True Strike case is even more clear cut to me, since the spell can actually change the weapon's base damage type
The spell doesn't change the weapon's damage type, it change the attack's damage if it deals any.
So for example when you cast True Strike and make one attack with a Glaive but miss, the attack doesn't deal Radiant damage.
With Graze Mastery though, 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 (Slashing), not the attack (Radiant)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
ok, well it looks like I don't have anything else to add that I haven't already said. If you want to make the case that 4 + 2 is not an increase over 4 because you prefer to call it a bonus instead, then that's all you.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
In this case Rage is the general rule (stating that Rage damage is added whenever damage is inflicted by a STR weapon or unarmed strike).
Graze is the specific rule (when the damage is from Graze nothing more gets added).
You are free to rule whatever you wish at your table, but it is pretty clear that RAW and the dev's RAI was to have Graze inflict a tiny amount of damage when you would normally inflict none, and even goes so far as to specify that the damage cannot be increased above that of the ability score modifier used by the attack. Not really sure how they could have made it any clearer.
Graze is not to allow a backdoor way to pile in damage automatically every round, it is meant to provide a tiny bit of damage on what would otherwise be none.
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
That's really not how that works
I could just as easily declare that Graze is the general rule (since it's a Weapon Mastery available to anyone with the right class/feat) and Rage is the specific rule (only applies to barbarians) that overrides it
They are both specific rules that override the general rules for weapon damage. That's the problem
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)
Rage damage doesn't work with Graze simply because of the order of operations in executing an attack. (Though also because it very much is increasing the weapon damage, unlike Basic Poison which - as mentioned earlier - adds a different type of damage rather than a direct increase.)
The final step of Making an Attack is as follows: "Resolve the Attack. Make the attack roll, as detailed earlier in this chapter. On a hit, you roll damage unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage."
You make the attack roll and apply its effects, after which the attack is resolved. If you hit, you roll damage - which is the damage that Rage damage can increase - at which point the attack is Resolved. If you miss, the attack is Resolved.
Graze happens after an attack misses - and is therefore resolved - but Rage damage happens "when you make an attack and deal damage."
For what it's worth, there have been many threads over the years which have debated similar issues arising from the use of the word "bonus" as opposed to something being increased. Calculating your final movement speed after simultaneously applying multiple separate effects which are worded in various different ways comes to mind. Another involved attempting certain combos which included the Shillelagh spell and how much damage was actually done given the precise wording involved. And so on. There are more accurate examples but I'm not great at linking back to old threads for the specifics. The point I'm making is that the particular wording that is chosen by the author is sometimes mechanically significant (either intentionally or unintentionally).
Again, nothing in Graze says the damage happens after the attack is resolved
You can view it as implied, and even make a case for it being RAI, but it doesn't say "after your attack misses, you can deal damage equal to the ability modifier..."
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)
We'll have to agree to disagree.
How the attack rules read (to me), if an attack misses, it's resolved. Therefore Graze has to happen after the attack, because if the attack misses, it's over; that's the final step of making an attack.
Furthermore - and perhaps most damning - "used" is past tense. The use of the word "used" in the text of Graze implies (again, to me, everyone can of course play as they so choose) that the attack was already completed.
Wow. This thread seems to have blown up while I was away.
Rage damage is another excellent instance of the fact that you are dealing damage with an attack, but not necessarily hitting with one!
I'm going to point something out here that I think will only add confusion, but in a spell like Hellish Rebuke it says "...damage on a failed save or half as much damage on a successful one."
Failed. Past tense. I think the wording here is simply because in the natural progression of the game, the attack roll has already happened, but the damage and resolution has not. At least, not yet.
Furthermore, I'd say I have a fairly good case in arguing that graze happens as part of the attack, not after it has resolved.
Also a fair point. I'm not sure I can really make this any clearer with a one-line rule that disambiguates this. Perhaps, "this damage cannot trigger or use any other features or abilities" or some such. As it is at the moment, it's woefully unclear what it can and cannot interact with, and that's kind of the point of the thread. Yes, I started with specifics, but the way graze, specifically, happens, is dreadful.
Let's assume it works the way you're arguing. The weapon mastery is borderline worthless, especially as characters grow in power. It will flatline (at best) at around level 5-6 for fighters, 8 or so for any other character who cares. It is actually likely to provide LESS value as the characters get higher levels from there, as HP of creatures grow, magic items are found, and other features are in use. and it already started at circa 1.2 DPR. the topple, cleave, vex, etc. properties GAIN value as the character gets stronger. RAI, i don't like that for my players. I want them to feel powerful. I want them to be able to have the "eureka" moment of thinking, "I know I did less damage than expected, but at least I can smite/poison/rage damage the creature," and get just a little more out of this feature.
Mechanically, the result of the attack obviously has to be determined before you can apply any effects that happen on a hit or a miss -- otherwise you wouldn't know whether to apply it
That doesn't mean the effect itself happens after the hit or the miss
Look at any effect that happens on a hit, like a smite. You have to determine whether the result of the attack is a hit before applying the smite, but that doesn't mean the smite happens after the attack
As for the past tense thing... again, you have to have already made the attack roll before you know whether Graze can even be applied. That's not a rules statement, it's a physics statement
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)
When your boss at McDo gives you a salary bonus, your income increase.
Let's say I attacked with a flame tongue greatsword and missed. Would I get to pick between slashing and fire damage when choosing the type of damage done by the graze effect?
"Not all those who wander are lost"
That's a really good question. I think as a DM I would rule that yes, you would get to choose -- it fits the flavor of both the magic weapon and the seeming intent behind the Mastery, and I don't see anything that would shut it down in the RAW. (Just to bring this full circle back to the original point of the thread, I'd say the same for a Graze / true strike combo)
If you think the RAI is that "the same type dealt by the weapon" means only the base damage type, that's reasonable too
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)
RAW is a little ambiguous there, but that's probably how I'd rule it.
pronouns: he/she/they
To me Graze damage is the same type dealt by the weapon table list normally do, not extra damage type from magic weapon.
In my case, your RAI proposal is how I'd rule it. Also for True Strike.
While receiving a pay bonus might increase your income, your base salary very explicitly has not been increased. Many paystubs make a point to break this down as two separate sources of income for various reasons. The use of the word "bonus" in the context of this thread is mechanically significant.
There are several problems with these statements.
First, Rage damage does not increase weapon damage. If it did, the text would say so.
Second, there is no issue with "order of operations". Events happen in this game when they are triggered. We must simply read the text to determine exactly what the trigger is for the event and whether or not that trigger actually occurs. The general rule is that when you resolve an attack you must do some housekeeping on a hit (roll for damage) as part of the process for resolving the attack. The Graze mastery property is a specific rule that adds some additional housekeeping that must be done on a miss as part of the process for resolving the attack. Another way to look at it is that the Graze effect is a "special effect" that is caused by this attack ("Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage.").
Third, Basic Poison doesn't work with Graze, as mentioned earlier.
Next, there's nothing that indicates that Graze happens somehow after and separately from the attack. The missed attack is what triggers the Graze and that gets resolved immediately while the attack is being resolved. You can't save it up for later. You can't, like, claim that you want to apply your Graze damage now on an attack that missed an hour ago or something.
Lastly, the claim: "If you hit, you roll damage - which is the damage that Rage damage can increase" . . . is not supported by the text.
The only real argument that could be made against applying Rage damage to the Graze attack would be a similar argument that I made earlier about why the Basic Poison does not work for Graze attacks -- because you are dealing the Graze damage instead of the weapon. In doing so, you would also have to argue that this damage is dealt totally outside of the context of the attack in question, which doesn't really make any sense as I explained above. But if we look carefully at what actually triggers the Rage Damage, we see that it doesn't care if the damage is dealt by the weapon (unlike the Basic Poison, which DOES care about that). The Rage Damage only cares about whether a Strength-based attack is made and that (you) deal damage as a consequence of that attack.
Although Graze damage is not dealt by the weapon that was used in the attack, the graze damage is dealt as a consequence of that attack.
So, in this case, during the process of resolving the attack we apply the Graze damage, which is its own thing and cannot be increased . . . and we also apply the Rage Damage bonus which is its own separate thing. This is because both of these effects have been triggered because this attack meets the requirements for triggering both of them.
Yeah, I just have trouble reconciling that in my head with your flaming sword grazing a target for a little bit of damage, and it not being allowing to do fire damage
The True Strike case is even more clear cut to me, since the spell can actually change the weapon's base damage type
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)
When you suspect there are multiple ways to read a rule, everyone at the table is best served when you read it most simply.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Missed a lot over night and don't think it's really worth the effort of nitpicking replies at this point. The one thing I will dispute is that Rage damage absolutely increases weapon damage, and the text does say so. "When you make an attack ... with a weapon ... and deal damage, you gain a bonus to the damage." If you want to be pedantic about the word "bonus" being used instead of "increase" rather than treating them synonymously, you're of course welcome to do so, but you've got to admit that is an incredible reach.
Otherwise, at this point, we're all just going to keep going in circles arguing obtuse semantics. Unfortunately, many of these things are written in vague and inconsistent ways that leave them open to multiple avenues of interpretation, so reaching a consensus on RAW just isn't going to happen.
It's become very obvious there's no clear cut answer, so - as Texas says - everyone should interpret it as simply as you can at your table, and rule how you want as a DM.
The spell doesn't change the weapon's damage type, it change the attack's damage if it deals any.
So for example when you cast True Strike and make one attack with a Glaive but miss, the attack doesn't deal Radiant damage.
With Graze Mastery though, 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 (Slashing), not the attack (Radiant)