I’ve been looking into the dnd5.5e wording of Great Weapon Fighting (GWF) and whether it lets you reroll 1s and 2s on all damage dice from an attack, including things like Divine Smite, Elemental Weapon, hunter mark or Holy Weapon. Some people argue that it applies to everything, but I think that’s a misreading of the rule.
Here’s the exact wording of GWF:
“When you roll damage for an attack you make with a Melee weapon that you are holding with two hands, you can treat any 1 or 2 on a damage die as a 3. The weapon must have the Two-Handed or Versatile property to gain this benefit.”
I think that “On a damage die” is referring to the dice rolled as part of that weapon’s damage roll, not any extra effects that happen because of the hit, but other guys argue that hunter mark or Divine Smite also“On a damage die”
I feel really confues, so I’d love to hear if anyone has an official ruling or another interpretation I might have missed!
The Great Weapon Fighting feature—which is shared by fighters and paladins—is meant to benefit only the damage roll of the weapon used with the feature. For example, if you use a greatsword with the feature, you can reroll any 1 or 2 you roll on the weapon’s 2d6. If you’re a paladin and use Divine Smite with the greatsword, Great Weapon Fighting doesn’t let you reroll a 1 or 2 that you roll for the damage of Divine Smite.
I agree that Savage Attacker interacts only with the weapon’s damage dice, not to the total attack’s damage. So for example, extra damage from Hunter's Mark, Hex, Sneak Attack, Smite spells or True Strike (at higher levels) is not affected by Savage Attacker.
However, it's not clear to me GWF behaves the same way. For comparison the next wording is very similar, and you include the extra damage when landing a Critical Hit:
- Great Weapon Fighting: "When you roll damage for an attack you make with a Melee weapon [...] " - Critical Hits: "A Critical Hit lets you roll extra dice for the attack’s damage against the target [...]"
And as you can see in the threads below, some people agree that you should be able to reroll the extra damage from those kinds of spells or features mentioned earlier.
That said, the SAC is there in case of doubt to clarify the interaction.
Popping in to say right now we've received clarification that the Sage Advice Compendium is still RAW for 2024 rules that have not been replaced. With regards to the clarifications on weapon attacks and spell attacks, the SAC rulings are still RAW..
For the purpose of discussions in the Rules & Game Mechanics forum, SAC is considered RAW. That has been true since it was published, and the clarification I have received is that is still considered RAW for 2024 rules discussions.
Keep in mind that the current version of the SAC was written for the 2014 rules. If discussing a rule that has not changed at all then the explanations given in the SAC are still relevant. However, in this case, a lot has changed. The entire mechanic for how GWF works and how Divine Smite works have both been changed. GWF is now a Feat instead of a Feature, and Divine Smite is now a spell instead of a Feature. Furthermore, the wording for both of these have changed since 2014, so this interaction must be reanalyzed without the aid of the SAC.
The main thing to notice here is that the new wording of Divine Smite specifies that the damage comes "from the attack". It wasn't worded that way before.
The target takes an extra 2d8 Radiant damage from the attack.
The new GWF Feat starts out like this:
When you roll damage for an attack you make with a Melee weapon that you are holding with two hands,
As written, in 2024 these statements work together. The Radiant damage comes from the attack and all damage dice for the attack are fair game for the GWF Feat. GWF does apply to this damage.
I don't currently have the wording for Elemental Weapon so someone else will have to do the analysis for that one.
As for Hunter's Mark -- that is also a spell. But this spell is worded differently than Divine Smite. Instead of the damage coming "from the attack", Hunter's Mark is worded like this:
Until the spell ends, you deal an extra 1d6 Force damage to the target whenever you hit it
So, in this case we are looking at a spell which causes you to deal damage to a target when certain prerequisites are met. An attack can trigger Hunter's Mark damage, but that damage is not part of the attack, it comes from somewhere else. GWF would not apply to that damage since GWF only modifies damage dice which are part of the attack.
Holy Weapon is an old spell which has not yet been updated, but it follows a similar pattern to the new Divine Smite spell above:
weapon attacks made with it deal an extra 2d8 radiant damage on a hit.
This damage is clearly coming from the attack, so GWF does apply to this damage.
You may be right as to the RAW here, but — and I feel like I'm saying this a lot lately, but here goes — if you want a RAI answer, you have to consider whether, if this interpretation were correct, is this the way they would've written it? If they'd intended to change it so that Great Weapon Fighting applies to things like this when it didn't before, would they have done it with semantic trickery like this? Or would they have actually written that change down explicitly somewhere?
You may be right as to the RAW here, but — and I feel like I'm saying this a lot lately, but here goes — if you want a RAI answer, you have to consider whether, if this interpretation were correct, is this the way they would've written it? If they'd intended to change it so that Great Weapon Fighting applies to things like this when it didn't before, would they have done it with semantic trickery like this? Or would they have actually written that change down explicitly somewhere?
The smite thing is a fair point, though I would argue the wording there is pretty basic and unambiguous and relies on terms that are already defined in the rules. I don't know what the other two things you're referencing are, but just from the way you've described them I am not convinced they were intended to work that way.
I'd like to add my final thought on this topic: I'm not saying I'm right, nor will I insist on it. My first reply was just my personal analysis and a way to share others' opinions, and for me, the related answers from the SAC are still valid.
As I said in one of the threads, I'm understanding this SAC text "when you roll damage for an attack you make with a Melee weapon that you are holding..." as "when you roll damage from the Melee weapon that you are holding...". That interpretation works for me and settles the OP's question.
Those two statements aren't the same though. They would have written something like "weapon damage" or "damage from the weapon" if that was the intent. The GWF has to do with damage "for an attack", not damage from a weapon.
In the case of divine smite, the wording was specifically changed to specify that the damage comes "from the attack". To answer the above question, in this case, I do believe that this change was very intentional in order to enable precisely these sorts of interactions (particularly for Paladins) in the 2024 rules.
The SAC has been updated, and the answer revised. It remains the same, though.
If you use Great Weapon Fighting with a spell like Divine Smite or Hex, do you get to reroll any 1 or 2 you roll for the additional damage?
The Great Weapon Fighting feat benefits only the damage roll of the weapon used for the attack. For example, if you have this feat and make an attack roll with a Greatsword, you can reroll any 1 or 2 you roll on the weapon’s 2d6. If you cast Divine Smite after hitting with this attack, you can’t reroll a 1 or 2 rolled for the spell’s damage.
I’ve been looking into the dnd5.5e wording of Great Weapon Fighting (GWF) and whether it lets you reroll 1s and 2s on all damage dice from an attack, including things like Divine Smite, Elemental Weapon, hunter mark or Holy Weapon. Some people argue that it applies to everything, but I think that’s a misreading of the rule.
Here’s the exact wording of GWF:
I think that “On a damage die” is referring to the dice rolled as part of that weapon’s damage roll, not any extra effects that happen because of the hit, but other guys argue that hunter mark or Divine Smite also “On a damage die”
I feel really confues, so I’d love to hear if anyone has an official ruling or another interpretation I might have missed!
According to the Sage Advice Compendium:
EDIT: There's a recent thread about this here: Savage Attacker, Great Weapon Fighting and extra damage dice , and I shared my thoughts and linked related discussions there:
Just adding this since it’s relevant for future visitors:
Keep in mind that the current version of the SAC was written for the 2014 rules. If discussing a rule that has not changed at all then the explanations given in the SAC are still relevant. However, in this case, a lot has changed. The entire mechanic for how GWF works and how Divine Smite works have both been changed. GWF is now a Feat instead of a Feature, and Divine Smite is now a spell instead of a Feature. Furthermore, the wording for both of these have changed since 2014, so this interaction must be reanalyzed without the aid of the SAC.
The main thing to notice here is that the new wording of Divine Smite specifies that the damage comes "from the attack". It wasn't worded that way before.
The new GWF Feat starts out like this:
As written, in 2024 these statements work together. The Radiant damage comes from the attack and all damage dice for the attack are fair game for the GWF Feat. GWF does apply to this damage.
I don't currently have the wording for Elemental Weapon so someone else will have to do the analysis for that one.
As for Hunter's Mark -- that is also a spell. But this spell is worded differently than Divine Smite. Instead of the damage coming "from the attack", Hunter's Mark is worded like this:
So, in this case we are looking at a spell which causes you to deal damage to a target when certain prerequisites are met. An attack can trigger Hunter's Mark damage, but that damage is not part of the attack, it comes from somewhere else. GWF would not apply to that damage since GWF only modifies damage dice which are part of the attack.
Holy Weapon is an old spell which has not yet been updated, but it follows a similar pattern to the new Divine Smite spell above:
This damage is clearly coming from the attack, so GWF does apply to this damage.
You may be right as to the RAW here, but — and I feel like I'm saying this a lot lately, but here goes — if you want a RAI answer, you have to consider whether, if this interpretation were correct, is this the way they would've written it? If they'd intended to change it so that Great Weapon Fighting applies to things like this when it didn't before, would they have done it with semantic trickery like this? Or would they have actually written that change down explicitly somewhere?
pronouns: he/she/they
This makes sense to me. Thanks! :)
The smite thing is a fair point, though I would argue the wording there is pretty basic and unambiguous and relies on terms that are already defined in the rules. I don't know what the other two things you're referencing are, but just from the way you've described them I am not convinced they were intended to work that way.
pronouns: he/she/they
I'd like to add my final thought on this topic: I'm not saying I'm right, nor will I insist on it. My first reply was just my personal analysis and a way to share others' opinions, and for me, the related answers from the SAC are still valid.
As I said in one of the threads, I'm understanding this SAC text "when you roll damage for an attack you make with a Melee weapon that you are holding..." as "when you roll damage from the Melee weapon that you are holding...". That interpretation works for me and settles the OP's question.
Those two statements aren't the same though. They would have written something like "weapon damage" or "damage from the weapon" if that was the intent. The GWF has to do with damage "for an attack", not damage from a weapon.
In the case of divine smite, the wording was specifically changed to specify that the damage comes "from the attack". To answer the above question, in this case, I do believe that this change was very intentional in order to enable precisely these sorts of interactions (particularly for Paladins) in the 2024 rules.
The SAC has been updated, and the answer revised. It remains the same, though.