I keep looking for answers but to no result, the description of the torch says that it counts as a simple melee weapon that deals 1 fire damage
Monks can use simple melee weapons and roll their martial arts die instead of the normal damage, does this mean that a level 1 monk with 16 dex can deal 1d6+3 fire damage with a torch? How else would it work if it weren't like that?
I guess this is debatable, but my interpretation is that you have two options:
You take the Attack action, attack with the Torch using it as a Simple Melee weapon and on a hit the target takes (only) 1 Fire damage. If you have proficiency with a Simple Melee weapon, you add your Proficiency Bonus to the attack roll.
You use your Martial Arts to attack with the Torch, but then you're not using the Torch to make the Fire damage, so I'd rule 1d6+3 Bludgeoning on a hit.
I guess this is debatable, but my interpretation is that you have two options:
You take the Attack action, attack with the Torch using it as a Simple Melee weapon and on a hit the target takes (only) 1 Fire damage. If you have proficiency with a Simple Melee weapon, you add your Proficiency Bonus to the attack roll.
You use your Martial Arts to attack with the Torch, but then you're not using the Torch to make the Fire damage, so I'd rule 1d6+3 Bludgeoning on a hit.
How I would rule this is that it counts as an improvised club that deals an extra 1 fire damage. So it would deal 1d6+3 bludgeoning and 1 fire damage. Most of the damage would come from the beating...with just a little extra from the fiery bits.
Unless a rule says otherwise, you don’t add your ability modifier to a fixed damage amount that doesn’t use a roll, such as the damage of a Blowgun.
All that said, I certainly wouldn't play it that way at my table. I'd treat attacking with a torch as attacking with an improvised weapon that does bludgeoning damage, with the extra 1 point of fire damage tacked on
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I guess this is debatable, but my interpretation is that you have two options:
You take the Attack action, attack with the Torch using it as a Simple Melee weapon and on a hit the target takes (only) 1 Fire damage. If you have proficiency with a Simple Melee weapon, you add your Proficiency Bonus to the attack roll.
You use your Martial Arts to attack with the Torch, but then you're not using the Torch to make the Fire damage, so I'd rule 1d6+3 Bludgeoning on a hit.
How I would rule this is that it counts as an improvised club that deals an extra 1 fire damage. So it would deal 1d6+3 bludgeoning and 1 fire damage. Most of the damage would come from the beating...with just a little extra from the fiery bits.
In my mind, the fire damage happens when you use the item as intended (the regular rule described in the Torch), but yeah, I could agree with your proposal too.
[...] All that said, I certainly wouldn't play it that way at my table. I'd treat attacking with a torch as attacking with an improvised weapon that does bludgeoning damage, with the extra 1 point of fire damage tacked on
That may be an unintended interaction, if possible. Let me see if i can find something;
While Simple Melee weapons are Monk weapons, a Torch is not a weapon dealing normal damage but an item that when you attack with one and hit, the target takes 1 Fire damage, from the contact with the burning flame.
I know what you're gonna say, the counter argument against it is not all that hot loll
Oh, I'd say it's definitely unintended, but the description of a torch says you are "using it as a Simple Melee weapon" when you attack with it. That's hard to hand-wave away if you're sticking to RAW
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)
It might be RAW, but I think then we run into the “good faith interpretation” part of RAW. Of course it’s not meant to work that way and turn a monk into someone who can make unlimited fire attacks at first level. I’d agree with those who say it would work basically like a club, and then just tack on 1 extra fire damage.
At my table, I’d also rule you can only hit someone with it one time. A torch isn’t meant to be used as a weapon and isn’t sturdy enough, so it will break. Partly because that seems more realistic, and partly because if you allow it, monks will just start using torches as their main weapon for a free +1 to damage. It would make a torch better than any other mundane monk weapon.
A monk can fight with an unlit torch, uses it as a simple weapon, and it deals martial art die+mod fire damage.
That's amazing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Oh, I'd say it's definitely unintended, but the description of a torch says you are "using it as a Simple Melee weapon" when you attack with it. That's hard to hand-wave away if you're sticking to RAW
Probably, there'll be errata to add: "the Torch includes a note: hey Monk, don't!" :D
I would go for the interpretation, that a Torch is not part of the list of simple melee weapons, and thus is not a monk weapon.
It just utilizes the "proficiency with simple melee weapons" for attacks.
This is my RAI.
RAW, this is probably the most correct interpretation. The description for a torch is that you can be "using it as a Simple Melee weapon". That does not mean that it actually IS a Simple Melee weapon, which is the requirement for the Martial Arts feature:
Monk weapons, which are the following:
Simple Melee weapons
Martial Melee weapons that have the Light property
You gain the following benefits while you are unarmed or wielding only Monk weapons and you aren’t wearing armor or wielding a Shield.
Although that would be a slippery slope, as then what would be the benefit at all of "using it as a Simple Melee weapon". Would it even count as a "melee attack with a weapon" for such features which rely on wording similar to that, for example.
My interpretation agrees with up2ng. Treating things as X does not mean the things *actually are* X.
Then you'll need to explain what the difference is, from a rules perspective
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)
My interpretation agrees with up2ng. Treating things as X does not mean the things *actually are* X.
Then you'll need to explain what the difference is, from a rules perspective
Probably the biggest point in favor of this interpretation is the definition of a Weapon from the Rules Glossary:
Weapon
A weapon is an object that is in the Simple or Martial weapon category. See also chapter 6 (“Weapons”).
We can also check how a weapon is defined in the Equipment chapter and also take some inspiration from the wording that is used for Improvised Weapons:
Weapons
The Weapons table in this section shows the game’s main weapons.
Use of the word "main" does provide a bit more wiggle room than the definition from the Glossary. But at least in the general rules the main exception seems to come from the description of Improvised Weapons:
Improvised Weapons
If you use an object—such as a table leg, frying pan, or bottle—as a makeshift weapon, see “Improvised Weapons” in the rules glossary.
and from the Glossary:
An improvised weapon is an object wielded as a makeshift weapon, such as broken glass, a table leg, or a frying pan. A Simple or Martial weapon also counts as an improvised weapon if it’s wielded in a way contrary to its design
. . .
Weapon Equivalents. If an improvised weapon resembles a Simple or Martial weapon, the DM may say it functions as that weapon and uses that weapon’s rules.
Taken together, the first set of statements shows that many improvised weapons are merely used as "makeshift" weapons and are not actually Simple or Martial weapons -- if you actually are wielding an actual Simple or Martial weapon, there are separate rules for whether or not those should be treated as an improvised weapon.
The second statement explains that it is talking about an object that is "equivalent" to a certain type of weapon, but stops short of saying that such an object "is" or "becomes" that type of weapon.
So, if a Monk weapon includes weapons that "are" simple weapons, that probably does not actually include objects that "are not" simple weapons, even if those weapons might be "equivalent to" simple weapons.
Just as an aside, I don't feel too strongly about this interpretation. I think that it's probably slightly more accurate than other interpretations, but I could see it going either way without too much of a stretch.
RAF: Why not? Fire is one of the most resisted types, and there is finally a class that makes the classic adventure's tool a viable weapon. Cool. It's a neat little synergy and it's not hurting anyone (other than the trolls north of Baldur's Gate)
RAF: Why not? Fire is one of the most resisted types, and there is finally a class that makes the classic adventure's tool a viable weapon. Cool. It's a neat little synergy and it's not hurting anyone (other than the trolls north of Baldur's Gate)
I would say it doesn't work since a Torch is not a simple weapon, it can merely be used as one and so isn't applicably a monk weapon however when you attack with it, you still add your proficiency bonus.
For the why not, there is literally a monk subclass that is already dedicated to making unarmed attacks that do Acid, Cold, Fire, Lightning, or Thunder damage, Warrior of the Elements, this infringes a bit too much on to Warrior of the Elements, in my opinion.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I keep looking for answers but to no result, the description of the torch says that it counts as a simple melee weapon that deals 1 fire damage
Monks can use simple melee weapons and roll their martial arts die instead of the normal damage, does this mean that a level 1 monk with 16 dex can deal 1d6+3 fire damage with a torch? How else would it work if it weren't like that?
I guess this is debatable, but my interpretation is that you have two options:
How I would rule this is that it counts as an improvised club that deals an extra 1 fire damage. So it would deal 1d6+3 bludgeoning and 1 fire damage. Most of the damage would come from the beating...with just a little extra from the fiery bits.
Why in God's name did they make a torch a Simple Melee weapon
Torch
EDIT: Fun/stupid thing I just noticed. It doesn't say the torch has to be lit to do fire damage
Monk
Per strict RAW, yeah, you can sub in your Martial Arts die for the damage on a torch, and it would still be fire damage
Even the rule about not adding your ability mod to fixed damage gets superseded once the Martial Arts die gets subbed in
All that said, I certainly wouldn't play it that way at my table. I'd treat attacking with a torch as attacking with an improvised weapon that does bludgeoning damage, with the extra 1 point of fire damage tacked on
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
In my mind, the fire damage happens when you use the item as intended (the regular rule described in the Torch), but yeah, I could agree with your proposal too.
EDIT: adding @AntonSirius' reply:
Same as @Sequilonis, then!
PS. Thank you both!
That may be an unintended interaction, if possible. Let me see if i can find something;
While Simple Melee weapons are Monk weapons, a Torch is not a weapon dealing normal damage but an item that when you attack with one and hit, the target takes 1 Fire damage, from the contact with the burning flame.
I know what you're gonna say, the counter argument against it is not all that hot loll
Have anything better?
Oh, I'd say it's definitely unintended, but the description of a torch says you are "using it as a Simple Melee weapon" when you attack with it. That's hard to hand-wave away if you're sticking to RAW
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)
It might be RAW, but I think then we run into the “good faith interpretation” part of RAW. Of course it’s not meant to work that way and turn a monk into someone who can make unlimited fire attacks at first level.
I’d agree with those who say it would work basically like a club, and then just tack on 1 extra fire damage.
At my table, I’d also rule you can only hit someone with it one time. A torch isn’t meant to be used as a weapon and isn’t sturdy enough, so it will break. Partly because that seems more realistic, and partly because if you allow it, monks will just start using torches as their main weapon for a free +1 to damage. It would make a torch better than any other mundane monk weapon.
I would go for the interpretation, that a Torch is not part of the list of simple melee weapons, and thus is not a monk weapon.
It just utilizes the "proficiency with simple melee weapons" for attacks.
This is my RAI.
So, RAW:
A monk can fight with an unlit torch, uses it as a simple weapon, and it deals martial art die+mod fire damage.
That's amazing.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Probably, there'll be errata to add: "the Torch includes a note: hey Monk, don't!" :D
Why were there so many responses that included "tacking on" 1 fire damage? The Martial Arts feature says "in place of", not "in addition to".
There is also a possible interpretation that the damage just becomes 1d6 instead of 1d6 + modifiers, since the feature says:
You replace the normal damage, not a die roll.
In addition, there is this idea:
RAW, this is probably the most correct interpretation. The description for a torch is that you can be "using it as a Simple Melee weapon". That does not mean that it actually IS a Simple Melee weapon, which is the requirement for the Martial Arts feature:
Although that would be a slippery slope, as then what would be the benefit at all of "using it as a Simple Melee weapon". Would it even count as a "melee attack with a weapon" for such features which rely on wording similar to that, for example.
My interpretation agrees with up2ng. Treating things as X does not mean the things *actually are* X.
Then you'll need to explain what the difference is, from a rules perspective
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)
Probably the biggest point in favor of this interpretation is the definition of a Weapon from the Rules Glossary:
We can also check how a weapon is defined in the Equipment chapter and also take some inspiration from the wording that is used for Improvised Weapons:
Use of the word "main" does provide a bit more wiggle room than the definition from the Glossary. But at least in the general rules the main exception seems to come from the description of Improvised Weapons:
and from the Glossary:
Taken together, the first set of statements shows that many improvised weapons are merely used as "makeshift" weapons and are not actually Simple or Martial weapons -- if you actually are wielding an actual Simple or Martial weapon, there are separate rules for whether or not those should be treated as an improvised weapon.
The second statement explains that it is talking about an object that is "equivalent" to a certain type of weapon, but stops short of saying that such an object "is" or "becomes" that type of weapon.
So, if a Monk weapon includes weapons that "are" simple weapons, that probably does not actually include objects that "are not" simple weapons, even if those weapons might be "equivalent to" simple weapons.
Just as an aside, I don't feel too strongly about this interpretation. I think that it's probably slightly more accurate than other interpretations, but I could see it going either way without too much of a stretch.
RAW: it works
RAI: maybe it wasn't intended
RAF: Why not? Fire is one of the most resisted types, and there is finally a class that makes the classic adventure's tool a viable weapon. Cool. It's a neat little synergy and it's not hurting anyone (other than the trolls north of Baldur's Gate)
I would say it doesn't work since a Torch is not a simple weapon, it can merely be used as one and so isn't applicably a monk weapon however when you attack with it, you still add your proficiency bonus.
For the why not, there is literally a monk subclass that is already dedicated to making unarmed attacks that do Acid, Cold, Fire, Lightning, or Thunder damage, Warrior of the Elements, this infringes a bit too much on to Warrior of the Elements, in my opinion.