I think this is a fair point. A torch can be used a simple weapon. A Staff can be used as quarterstaff. It's the same language, but a Magic Staff isn't a Magic Weapon (Magic Item Categories). This came up on an Artificer UA discussion about whether replicating uncommon weapons, for example, allowed for replicating Staves. However, I would be surprised if a DM didn't allow a monk to use a Staff (magical or a spellcasting focus) as a monk weapon. A torch isn't really much different. It seems to be odd to allow a monk to deal Martial Arts Fire damage, but I don't see it as that big a deal and efficient, price strikes as opposed to wild swings is the typical distinction between martial arts and untrained unarmed combat.
Mechanically, Bludgeoning vulnerability is more common than Fire, Bludgeoning resistance is more common than Fire, and Fire Immunity is more common that Bludgeoning.
I haven't got much issue with allowing a Torch to be used by a Monk as a monk weapon. The limiting factor I would impose is that I wouldn't allow a Torch to survive that many hits when used as a weapon (a few probably but certainly not indefinitely).
I understand where you are coming from, but there are no RAW item or weapon durability rules. You can smack a Pit Fiend with your rolled up scrolls and, RAW, they will be none the worse for wear. As such, it will come down to a table-by-table ruling if it applies.
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.
This what I would also say is a good interpretation. There won’t be a definitive answer because it’s arbitrary and your DM would have to rule it. But the above is very very solid.
I do believe that RAW, a monk using a torch should be able to deal 1d6+3 fire damage, and as a DM, I would actually be quite alright with converting ALL of the damage to fire damage. People have previously pointed out that ruling it as an improvised weapon makes sense, but tacking on the extra 1 fire damage actually seems like a power creep to me. In fact, as it stands in 2024 rules, bludgeoning is a far more effective damage type than fire. Accounting for vulnerabilites, resistances, and immunities to both damage types, bludgeoning is a prefereable damage type, being 97.8% effective against the 2024 roster of monsters, and fire being 88.4% effective against the roster.
TLDR: As a DM and number cruncher, ruling torches to deal fire damage equivalent to martial arts die is RAW, but oddly suboptimal in most cases.
In fact, as it stands in 2024 rules, bludgeoning is a far more effective damage type than fire. Accounting for vulnerabilites, resistances, and immunities to both damage types, bludgeoning is a prefereable damage type, being 97.8% effective against the 2024 roster of monsters, and fire being 88.4% effective against the roster.
TLDR: As a DM and number cruncher, ruling torches to deal fire damage equivalent to martial arts die is RAW, but oddly suboptimal in most cases.
I suspected as much. Thanks for crunching numbers. Out of curiosity, does this include Vulnerabilities and Immunities or just Resistances?
Still having the option to deal fire damage is better than not having it. However, note that the damage will be 1D[Martial Arts Die] Fire for the torch and 1D[Martial Arts Die] + Strength or Dexterity modifier + other modifiers for Unarmed Strikes or other, proper Monk Weapons. Despite the Martial Arts Die replacing the flat damage of the torch, the damage will be lower than alternatives unless you are a monk with an 11 or lower in both Strength and Dexterity (which is unlikely). By level 8, you will be typically comparing 1D8 Fire versus 1D8 + 5 Bludgeoning.
In fact, as it stands in 2024 rules, bludgeoning is a far more effective damage type than fire. Accounting for vulnerabilites, resistances, and immunities to both damage types, bludgeoning is a prefereable damage type, being 97.8% effective against the 2024 roster of monsters, and fire being 88.4% effective against the roster.
TLDR: As a DM and number cruncher, ruling torches to deal fire damage equivalent to martial arts die is RAW, but oddly suboptimal in most cases.
I suspected as much. Thanks for crunching numbers. Out of curiosity, does this include Vulnerabilities and Immunities or just Resistances?
Still having the option to deal fire damage is better than not having it. However, note that the damage will be 1D[Martial Arts Die] Fire for the torch and 1D[Martial Arts Die] + Strength or Dexterity modifier + other modifiers for Unarmed Strikes or other, proper Monk Weapons. Despite the Martial Arts Die replacing the flat damage of the torch, the damage will be lower than alternatives unless you are a monk with an 11 or lower in both Strength and Dexterity (which is unlikely). By level 8, you will be typically comparing 1D8 Fire versus 1D8 + 5 Bludgeoning.
The rule for whether or not you add the attribute modifier to the damage is as follows, under Damage Rolls
When attacking with a weapon, you add your ability modifier—the same modifier used for the attack roll—to the damage roll. A spell tells you which dice to roll for damage and whether to add any modifiers. 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. See chapter 6 for weapons’ damage dice and chapter 7 for spells’ damage dice.
If you are allowing the damage the torch does to be upgraded to [Martial Arts Die] Fire damage by counting it as a Monk Weapon, it is no longer "a fixed amount of damage that doesn't use a roll" and thus gets the Attribute Modifier Bonus.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
🎵I'm on top of the world, looking down on creation, wreaking death and devastation with my mind.
As the power that I've found erupts freely from the ground, I will cackle from the top of the world.🎵
If you are allowing the damage the torch does to be upgraded to [Martial Arts Die] Fire damage by counting it as a Monk Weapon, it is no longer "a fixed amount of damage that doesn't use a roll" and thus gets the Attribute Modifier Bonus.
I stand corrected. I was just looking at the rules for the damage it deals, but you're right; the reason that that attribute is not included is because it includes that rule unstated. That still leaves always dealing fire damage being generally worse than dealing bludgeoning but the ability to deal fire damage rather than bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing a decent buff, depending on the campaign.
Personally I'd allow it but I'd have it break after some hits like suggested above. Sure, item durability is not in the rules really but some things are handled by GM rulings. If you hit someone with a bottle it will break. It seems fun, it does not hurt the game, let them have at it.
I understand where you are coming from, but there are no RAW item or weapon durability rules. You can smack a Pit Fiend with your rolled up scrolls and, RAW, they will be none the worse for wear. As such, it will come down to a table-by-table ruling if it applies.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
This what I would also say is a good interpretation. There won’t be a definitive answer because it’s arbitrary and your DM would have to rule it. But the above is very very solid.
I do believe that RAW, a monk using a torch should be able to deal 1d6+3 fire damage, and as a DM, I would actually be quite alright with converting ALL of the damage to fire damage. People have previously pointed out that ruling it as an improvised weapon makes sense, but tacking on the extra 1 fire damage actually seems like a power creep to me. In fact, as it stands in 2024 rules, bludgeoning is a far more effective damage type than fire. Accounting for vulnerabilites, resistances, and immunities to both damage types, bludgeoning is a prefereable damage type, being 97.8% effective against the 2024 roster of monsters, and fire being 88.4% effective against the roster.
TLDR: As a DM and number cruncher, ruling torches to deal fire damage equivalent to martial arts die is RAW, but oddly suboptimal in most cases.
I suspected as much. Thanks for crunching numbers. Out of curiosity, does this include Vulnerabilities and Immunities or just Resistances?
Still having the option to deal fire damage is better than not having it. However, note that the damage will be 1D[Martial Arts Die] Fire for the torch and 1D[Martial Arts Die] + Strength or Dexterity modifier + other modifiers for Unarmed Strikes or other, proper Monk Weapons. Despite the Martial Arts Die replacing the flat damage of the torch, the damage will be lower than alternatives unless you are a monk with an 11 or lower in both Strength and Dexterity (which is unlikely). By level 8, you will be typically comparing 1D8 Fire versus 1D8 + 5 Bludgeoning.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
The rule for whether or not you add the attribute modifier to the damage is as follows, under Damage Rolls
If you are allowing the damage the torch does to be upgraded to [Martial Arts Die] Fire damage by counting it as a Monk Weapon, it is no longer "a fixed amount of damage that doesn't use a roll" and thus gets the Attribute Modifier Bonus.
🎵I'm on top of the world, looking down on creation, wreaking death and devastation with my mind.
As the power that I've found erupts freely from the ground, I will cackle from the top of the world.🎵
Charisma Saving Throw: DC 18, Failure: 20d6 Psychic Damage, Success: Half damage
I stand corrected. I was just looking at the rules for the damage it deals, but you're right; the reason that that attribute is not included is because it includes that rule unstated. That still leaves always dealing fire damage being generally worse than dealing bludgeoning but the ability to deal fire damage rather than bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing a decent buff, depending on the campaign.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
Personally I'd allow it but I'd have it break after some hits like suggested above. Sure, item durability is not in the rules really but some things are handled by GM rulings. If you hit someone with a bottle it will break. It seems fun, it does not hurt the game, let them have at it.
It is actually difficult to break a bottle on somebody.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
most people don't wear metal armor.
Isn't that true of D&D groups as well? The concentration might be higher, but still.
WotC: Sundering weapons is dead.
MyDudeicus: Long live sundering weapons.
;)
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
I do miss sundering weapons.