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.
Right, the use of the word in the context of this thread is mechanically significant.
If you get some pay bonus, your pay increased.
If you get some extra hours, your hours increased.
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)
That's a fair distinction. Have we settled on whether the damage inflicted by graze is damage done by the weapon? If I swing my greatsword at a gray ooze and miss, would that graze be subject to the corrosive form trait of the ooze?
So for example when you cast True Strike and make one attack with a Glaive but miss, the attack doesn't deal Radiant damage.
Sorry, that's an absurd distinction. The weapon doesn't deal its normal damage type if it misses either. Because it missed
Trying to split a hair between "the weapon's damage type" and "the attack's damage type" is the kind of "melee weapon attack vs. attack with a melee weapon" gobbledygook they were trying to eliminate with this rules revision
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 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)
That's a fair distinction. Have we settled on whether the damage inflicted by graze is damage done by the weapon? If I swing my greatsword at a gray ooze and miss, would that graze be subject to the corrosive form trait of the ooze?
Up to DM if with Graze Mastery, without actually hitting the weapon is coming into contact with the Gray Ooze enought for it to be affected by its Corrosive Form Trait. I'd be led to believe so since the damage you deal is the same type dealt by the weapon.
In the version you linked before the revision Corrode Metal Trait required a hit but no longer does now.
Maybe it was just a logical conclusion I reached rather than something in the rules, but when 5e merged Touch AC and Flat Footed AC into one general armor class, I no longer consider missing on an attack role to be necessarily synonymous with a failure to make contact.
This is a perfectly logical conclusion to draw just from the fact that shields contribute directly to AC, and the whole point of a shield is that things hit it.
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.
Not only is paying attention to the use of the word "bonus" in the text not a reach at all, but it's the most accurate way of interpreting the text.
As I mentioned before, this use of the word "bonus" crops up all over the place in the game so you should decide for yourself, not just for this particular topic, but in all cases where this comes up throughout the game, how you are going to handle it. Are we just going to hand wave and approximate and assume that the author "must have meant" some particular idea that happens to agree with how we think things should be? Or should we examine the actual words that are used in the text and determine what they actually mean in the context of the game? When it comes to RAW discussions, pedantry is important -- it's really the whole discussion. What do the words in the text actually say and what do they mean. If you want to discuss the RAI in the Rules and Mechanics forum then you need to make that clear in your comments that you post because by default this forum is for interpreting the RAW.
The fact is, the Rage Damage does NOT increase weapon damage, and it certainly does not increase the special damage caused by the Graze Mastery Property (which is also NOT weapon damage). We know these things because the Rage Damage text doesn't say that it does any of those things. I've posted these two features next to each other a couple of times already, but I'll do so again for further emphasis:
Graze
If your attack roll with this weapon misses a creature, you [ not the weapon ] 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, yougaina bonus to the damage . . .
The lore behind rage is that it's not related to how sharp or how massive your weapon is -- rage comes from within. It's separate from the weapon. That's why the Rage Damage feature specifies that it also applies to an Unarmed Strike. It only cares that you make a Strength based attack and deal damage to the target.
Each section of the color-coded portion above is important in order to understand the mechanic.
First, the Rage Damage feature is giving YOU the ability to deal damage. This damage is not applied to any weapon, and it's not applied to some other feature such as the Graze Mastery Property. Your rage gives you (or in other words, your attack) the ability to deal the specified damage.
Second, the bonus is "gained". You only gain something when you didn't previously have it. In other words, this feature creates a whole new damage source. By default, an attack with a weapon has its own built-in damage source as defined by that weapon. The Graze Mastery Property creates a whole separate damage source for that attack which is separate from the weapon's damage. The Rage Damage feature causes YOU to gain a new, third, additional damage source for that attack which is separate from the weapon damage and is also separate from the Graze damage. The Graze damage is not modified by the Rage Damage in any way. These are two separate sources of damage. This additional source of damage from the Rage Damage is "gained" when a Barbarian makes a strength-based attack and deals damage.
Lastly, we're back to the word "bonus", which reveals much the same information as what the word "gain" tells us in that context. This bonus is a separate source of damage that is gained when certain prerequisites are met. The feature does not increase or modify or change any existing damage. It causes YOU to GAIN a BONUS damage (source), the value of which is equal to what is specified in the feature.
As I said before, the only way that this doesn't work is if you parse the Graze Mastery Property text to mean that the Graze damage is totally unrelated to the attack in question (even though it is triggered by that attack missing its target) such that the attack itself does not result in any damage. Since the Rage Damage only triggers when you make a Strength-based attack and deal damage to the attack target . . . if there's no attack then there is no Rage Damage. Likewise, if the attack results in no damage, then there is no Rage Damage. But, to me, trying to claim that the Graze damage is not derived from the attack is FAR more of a reach than my interpretation which claims that the weapon damage (which is zero), the Graze damage and the Rage damage are all sources of damage that are derived from the attack and therefore they should all be applied.
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.
Not only is paying attention to the use of the word "bonus" in the text not a reach at all, but it's the most accurate way of interpreting the text.
As I mentioned before, this use of the word "bonus" crops up all over the place in the game so you should decide for yourself, not just for this particular topic, but in all cases where this comes up throughout the game, how you are going to handle it. Are we just going to hand wave and approximate and assume that the author "must have meant" some particular idea that happens to agree with how we think things should be? Or should we examine the actual words that are used in the text and determine what they actually mean in the context of the game? When it comes to RAW discussions, pedantry is important -- it's really the whole discussion. What do the words in the text actually say and what do they mean. If you want to discuss the RAI in the Rules and Mechanics forum then you need to make that clear in your comments that you post because by default this forum is for interpreting the RAW.
The fact is, the Rage Damage does NOT increase weapon damage, and it certainly does not increase the special damage caused by the Graze Mastery Property (which is also NOT weapon damage). We know these things because the Rage Damage text doesn't say that it does any of those things. I've posted these two features next to each other a couple of times already, but I'll do so again for further emphasis:
Graze
If your attack roll with this weapon misses a creature, you [ not the weapon ] 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, yougaina bonus to the damage . . .
The lore behind rage is that it's not related to how sharp or how massive your weapon is -- rage comes from within. It's separate from the weapon. That's why the Rage Damage feature specifies that it also applies to an Unarmed Strike. It only cares that you make a Strength based attack and deal damage to the target.
Each section of the color-coded portion above is important in order to understand the mechanic.
First, the Rage Damage feature is giving YOU the ability to deal damage. This damage is not applied to any weapon, and it's not applied to some other feature such as the Graze Mastery Property. Your rage gives you (or in other words, your attack) the ability to deal the specified damage.
Second, the bonus is "gained". You only gain something when you didn't previously have it. In other words, this feature creates a whole new damage source. By default, an attack with a weapon has its own built-in damage source as defined by that weapon. The Graze Mastery Property creates a whole separate damage source for that attack which is separate from the weapon's damage. The Rage Damage feature causes YOU to gain a new, third, additional damage source for that attack which is separate from the weapon damage and is also separate from the Graze damage. The Graze damage is not modified by the Rage Damage in any way. These are two separate sources of damage. This additional source of damage from the Rage Damage is "gained" when a Barbarian makes a strength-based attack and deals damage.
Lastly, we're back to the word "bonus", which reveals much the same information as what the word "gain" tells us in that context. This bonus is a separate source of damage that is gained when certain prerequisites are met. The feature does not increase or modify or change any existing damage. It causes YOU to GAIN a BONUS damage (source), the value of which is equal to what is specified in the feature.
As I said before, the only way that this doesn't work is if you parse the Graze Mastery Property text to mean that the Graze damage is totally unrelated to the attack in question (even though it is triggered by that attack missing its target) such that the attack itself does not result in any damage. Since the Rage Damage only triggers when you make a Strength-based attack and deal damage to the attack target . . . if there's no attack then there is no Rage Damage. Likewise, if the attack results in no damage, then there is no Rage Damage. But, to me, trying to claim that the Graze damage is not derived from the attack is FAR more of a reach than my interpretation which claims that the weapon damage (which is zero), the Graze damage and the Rage damage are all sources of damage that are derived from the attack and therefore they should all be applied.
I believe this sage advice is relevant.
@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.
While not talking about this type of case, it establishes a clear parallel between bonus and additional damage.
Additionally, this is a nonsequitur: "Second, the bonus is "gained". You only gain something when you didn't previously have it. In other words, this feature creates a whole new damage source." Yes you didn't have the bonus damage before. Now you do have it and it adds to the existing damage.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Nothing goes over my head. My reflexes are to fast: I would catch it."
"I cannot comment on an ongoing investigation."
"Well of course I know that. What else is there? A kitten?"
"You'd like to think that, Wouldn't you?"
"A duck."
"What do you mean? An African or European swallow?"
@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.
While not talking about this type of case, it establishes a clear parallel between bonus and additional damage.
This is probably the most relevant sage advice or any other such ruling that I've seen, and fairly well ends this argument. The damning lines of "@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," are, as I see it, final. This does leave us in an unfortunate circumstance with weapon poison. Basic poison adds damage, thus it will not be affected by Graze dealing damage. However, so long as you're dealing slashing or piercing damage with Graze (and not something else like with Pact of the Blade or (and I'm not sold this works yet) True Strike ) then injury poisons that require a save still do. Contact poisons continue to apply, as well, regardless of damage type. All of that leads to the odd circumstance I present now;
DM: You miss the creature, but you still graze it for 4 damage. Player: Okay, does the poison work? DM: Uhhhh... what kind of poison is it? Player: Why does that matter?
Nobody is talking about making a second damage roll. That's a separate issue.
Yes, "Extra/bonus/additional" damage should all be treated similarly. And none of those change or modify the existing damage that's already there. They all create a new source of damage which is added to the existing (unchanged) damage.
JC's first tweat said: " . . . those dice are added to the damage the effect is already dealing." That's my point. The damage that is already being dealt is unchanged. There is some effect that is causing that damage which remains as it is. Then, there's also the "extra damage" which all gets included into "one big damage roll".
In his second tweet (which discusses two separate damage rolls), he mentions: "the damage of that second source is a different damage roll from the first." Note his use of the word "source" here. In this specific scenario he is discussing the fact that the second source of damage would require a second damage roll. However, we can see that those are two different concepts and in fact in many other scenarios we will have two different sources of damage contained within the same damage roll.
So, this debate really comes down to how you are reading the restriction that is given in the Graze Mastery Property text:
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.
Many people in this thread seem to be interpreting this restriction as applying to the total damage dealt by the entirety of the attack. I don't believe that that's what the words in the above text actually say. I believe that the restriction applies only to "this damage", meaning, the graze damage, which is one of potentially many sources of damage that might exist within the entirety of this attack. In this scenario, there are at least 3 damage sources from this attack: Damage from the weapon (which is zero, since it missed), damage from you via the Graze Mastery Property, and damage from a bonus that you gain from the Rage Damage element of the Rage class feature. If the restriction is interpreted to apply only to the Graze source of damage, then there is no problem with the attack containing multiple sources of damage which are added together as normal.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Right, the use of the word in the context of this thread is mechanically significant.
If you get some pay bonus, your pay increased.
If you get some extra hours, your hours increased.
That's a fair distinction. Have we settled on whether the damage inflicted by graze is damage done by the weapon? If I swing my greatsword at a gray ooze and miss, would that graze be subject to the corrosive form trait of the ooze?
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Sorry, that's an absurd distinction. The weapon doesn't deal its normal damage type if it misses either. Because it missed
Trying to split a hair between "the weapon's damage type" and "the attack's damage type" is the kind of "melee weapon attack vs. attack with a melee weapon" gobbledygook they were trying to eliminate with this rules revision
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)
Up to DM if with Graze Mastery, without actually hitting the weapon is coming into contact with the Gray Ooze enought for it to be affected by its Corrosive Form Trait. I'd be led to believe so since the damage you deal is the same type dealt by the weapon.
In the version you linked before the revision Corrode Metal Trait required a hit but no longer does now.
Maybe it was just a logical conclusion I reached rather than something in the rules, but when 5e merged Touch AC and Flat Footed AC into one general armor class, I no longer consider missing on an attack role to be necessarily synonymous with a failure to make contact.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
This is a perfectly logical conclusion to draw just from the fact that shields contribute directly to AC, and the whole point of a shield is that things hit it.
pronouns: he/she/they
Not only is paying attention to the use of the word "bonus" in the text not a reach at all, but it's the most accurate way of interpreting the text.
As I mentioned before, this use of the word "bonus" crops up all over the place in the game so you should decide for yourself, not just for this particular topic, but in all cases where this comes up throughout the game, how you are going to handle it. Are we just going to hand wave and approximate and assume that the author "must have meant" some particular idea that happens to agree with how we think things should be? Or should we examine the actual words that are used in the text and determine what they actually mean in the context of the game? When it comes to RAW discussions, pedantry is important -- it's really the whole discussion. What do the words in the text actually say and what do they mean. If you want to discuss the RAI in the Rules and Mechanics forum then you need to make that clear in your comments that you post because by default this forum is for interpreting the RAW.
The fact is, the Rage Damage does NOT increase weapon damage, and it certainly does not increase the special damage caused by the Graze Mastery Property (which is also NOT weapon damage). We know these things because the Rage Damage text doesn't say that it does any of those things. I've posted these two features next to each other a couple of times already, but I'll do so again for further emphasis:
The lore behind rage is that it's not related to how sharp or how massive your weapon is -- rage comes from within. It's separate from the weapon. That's why the Rage Damage feature specifies that it also applies to an Unarmed Strike. It only cares that you make a Strength based attack and deal damage to the target.
Each section of the color-coded portion above is important in order to understand the mechanic.
First, the Rage Damage feature is giving YOU the ability to deal damage. This damage is not applied to any weapon, and it's not applied to some other feature such as the Graze Mastery Property. Your rage gives you (or in other words, your attack) the ability to deal the specified damage.
Second, the bonus is "gained". You only gain something when you didn't previously have it. In other words, this feature creates a whole new damage source. By default, an attack with a weapon has its own built-in damage source as defined by that weapon. The Graze Mastery Property creates a whole separate damage source for that attack which is separate from the weapon's damage. The Rage Damage feature causes YOU to gain a new, third, additional damage source for that attack which is separate from the weapon damage and is also separate from the Graze damage. The Graze damage is not modified by the Rage Damage in any way. These are two separate sources of damage. This additional source of damage from the Rage Damage is "gained" when a Barbarian makes a strength-based attack and deals damage.
Lastly, we're back to the word "bonus", which reveals much the same information as what the word "gain" tells us in that context. This bonus is a separate source of damage that is gained when certain prerequisites are met. The feature does not increase or modify or change any existing damage. It causes YOU to GAIN a BONUS damage (source), the value of which is equal to what is specified in the feature.
As I said before, the only way that this doesn't work is if you parse the Graze Mastery Property text to mean that the Graze damage is totally unrelated to the attack in question (even though it is triggered by that attack missing its target) such that the attack itself does not result in any damage. Since the Rage Damage only triggers when you make a Strength-based attack and deal damage to the attack target . . . if there's no attack then there is no Rage Damage. Likewise, if the attack results in no damage, then there is no Rage Damage. But, to me, trying to claim that the Graze damage is not derived from the attack is FAR more of a reach than my interpretation which claims that the weapon damage (which is zero), the Graze damage and the Rage damage are all sources of damage that are derived from the attack and therefore they should all be applied.
I believe this sage advice is relevant.
While not talking about this type of case, it establishes a clear parallel between bonus and additional damage.
Additionally, this is a nonsequitur: "Second, the bonus is "gained". You only gain something when you didn't previously have it. In other words, this feature creates a whole new damage source." Yes you didn't have the bonus damage before. Now you do have it and it adds to the existing damage.
Extended signature
This is probably the most relevant sage advice or any other such ruling that I've seen, and fairly well ends this argument.
The damning lines of "@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," are, as I see it, final.
This does leave us in an unfortunate circumstance with weapon poison. Basic poison adds damage, thus it will not be affected by Graze dealing damage. However, so long as you're dealing slashing or piercing damage with Graze (and not something else like with Pact of the Blade or (and I'm not sold this works yet) True Strike ) then injury poisons that require a save still do. Contact poisons continue to apply, as well, regardless of damage type. All of that leads to the odd circumstance I present now;
DM: You miss the creature, but you still graze it for 4 damage.
Player: Okay, does the poison work?
DM: Uhhhh... what kind of poison is it?
Player: Why does that matter?
Nobody is talking about making a second damage roll. That's a separate issue.
Yes, "Extra/bonus/additional" damage should all be treated similarly. And none of those change or modify the existing damage that's already there. They all create a new source of damage which is added to the existing (unchanged) damage.
JC's first tweat said: " . . . those dice are added to the damage the effect is already dealing." That's my point. The damage that is already being dealt is unchanged. There is some effect that is causing that damage which remains as it is. Then, there's also the "extra damage" which all gets included into "one big damage roll".
In his second tweet (which discusses two separate damage rolls), he mentions: "the damage of that second source is a different damage roll from the first." Note his use of the word "source" here. In this specific scenario he is discussing the fact that the second source of damage would require a second damage roll. However, we can see that those are two different concepts and in fact in many other scenarios we will have two different sources of damage contained within the same damage roll.
So, this debate really comes down to how you are reading the restriction that is given in the Graze Mastery Property text:
Many people in this thread seem to be interpreting this restriction as applying to the total damage dealt by the entirety of the attack. I don't believe that that's what the words in the above text actually say. I believe that the restriction applies only to "this damage", meaning, the graze damage, which is one of potentially many sources of damage that might exist within the entirety of this attack. In this scenario, there are at least 3 damage sources from this attack: Damage from the weapon (which is zero, since it missed), damage from you via the Graze Mastery Property, and damage from a bonus that you gain from the Rage Damage element of the Rage class feature. If the restriction is interpreted to apply only to the Graze source of damage, then there is no problem with the attack containing multiple sources of damage which are added together as normal.