Question about stacking damage bonuses

My assumption was more regarding intent than perfect balance. I've designed and developed games, I know all too well that perfect balance is impossible.

And RAW, this stacking is actually allowed, as it's been determined in this thread already. The question is more about RAI.

Quote from Natrel >>

My assumption was more regarding intent than perfect balance. I've designed and developed games, I know all too well that perfect balance is impossible.

And RAW, this stacking is actually allowed, as it's been determined in this thread already. The question is more about RAI.

 Well, it's allowed as long as you assume true strike can benefit. RAI is probably that agonizing blast does not apply to true strike, and that celestial warlock is a 2014 subclass and therefore is not intended to interact with a 2024 invocation.

I believe the consensus is that it benefits from level 5, when the cantrip directly deals damage, but I don't see how it's related to "Crushing Throw" being a feature's name and "Rage" being another, meaning that there is nothing preventing both features to apply.

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

Quote from Natrel >>

My assumption was more regarding intent than perfect balance. I've designed and developed games, I know all too well that perfect balance is impossible.

And RAW, this stacking is actually allowed, as it's been determined in this thread already. The question is more about RAI.

 Well, it's allowed as long as you assume true strike can benefit. RAI is probably that agonizing blast does not apply to true strike, and that celestial warlock is a 2014 subclass and therefore is not intended to interact with a 2024 invocation.

 Maybe I'm missing something from your reply or the first post from Natrel, but Celestial Patron is a 5.5e subclass, right? And one of its features is Level 6: Radiant Soul.

Quote from Natrel >>

I believe the consensus is that it benefits from level 5, when the cantrip directly deals damage

That may be the perceived consensus in some other threads, but it certainly hasn't been the consensus in this thread.  This is also not the best interpretation of this feature interaction.

The requirement for applying Agonizing Blast is:  "Prerequisite:  A Warlock cantrip that deals damage" (that you know).

The requirement for applying Radiant Soul is:  "When a spell you cast deals Radiant damage".

However, True Strike is not a spell that deals damage.  Not at Level 1 and not at Level 5.  It is a spell that is cast on the spellcaster that allows the spellcaster to make a weapon attack:

you make one attack with the weapon used in the spell’s casting . . . If the attack deals damage, it can be Radiant damage . . . 

the attack deals extra Radiant damage when you reach levels 5 (1d6)

There is no mention of any other target for this spell and there is no mention of a spell attack.  The spell effect is a magical insight provided to the spellcaster that allows him to make an attack in a different manner than usual.

Here is an example that I've seen used in other threads.  Suppose that the effect of a spell states that a Flame Tongue longsword which is already ablaze in flames appears in your hand and you can make an attack with it.  That magic item's description states that "While the weapon is ablaze, it deals an extra 2d6 Fire damage on a hit."  So, does this spell deal Fire damage?  No.  This hypothetical spell enables you to be able to make an ordinary weapon attack with a Flame Tongue longsword.  The Fire damage is dealt from that ordinary weapon attack.

It should also be noted that not everything in an effect block of a spell is always describing the spell effect itself.  Sometimes an aftermath consequence is described that is not part of the spell effect itself.  For example, the spell Power Word Stun is an instantaneous spell that causes the Stunned condition to persist on an ongoing basis.  While the target creature continues to have the Stunned condition round after round, there is no actual spell effect in existence.  This is an aftermath consequence of a spell effect which existed previously.  The point of this example is that the attack and the damage caused by that attack that is mentioned in the spell description for True Strike is not the actual spell effect.  The spell effect is the magical insight which enables this attack.

I think you're getting confused between "dealing damage" and "making an attack". The way you're interpreting it almost sounds like you'd make it part of the weapon's damage for the purpose of Savage Attacker or Great Weapon Fighting. But no, it's damage, and the source of that damage is the spell.

Quote from Natrel >>

I think you're getting confused between "dealing damage" and "making an attack". The way you're interpreting it almost sounds like you'd make it part of the weapon's damage for the purpose of Savage Attacker or Great Weapon Fighting. But no, it's damage, and the source of that damage is the spell.

Savage Attacker only applies to the weapon's damage dice. So you don't get a benefit from Savage Attacker to your Vicious Weapon or Sneak Attack, only the raw damage dice of the weapon.

Great Weapon Fighting applies to the damage from the attack. So you do get the benefit from Vicious Weapon/Sneak Attack - as well as True Strike, Conjure Minor Elementals (when it is used with a weapon) and any other source of weapon damage.

All of the damage from True Strike is dealt by the weapon. While I can understand that not reading the spell carefully can lead people to believe it might be 'spell damage', it states outright that the damage is from the weapon.

Quote from Natrel >>

I think you're getting confused between "dealing damage" and "making an attack". The way you're interpreting it almost sounds like you'd make it part of the weapon's damage for the purpose of Savage Attacker or Great Weapon Fighting. But no, it's damage, and the source of that damage is the spell.

Debatable. True Strike can plausibly be interpreted as temporarily enchanting the weapon (for long enough to make an attack), in which case the source of the damage is still the weapon (now, is this the actual intent? Hard to say).

True Strike is a trap written by WotC to have adventurers arguing on the Internet about the attack type (weapon, spell, both?) or range (you, your weapon, a creature, all?) for eternity.

Quote from VerilyRaze >>

Savage Attacker only applies to the weapon's damage dice. So you don't get a benefit from Savage Attacker to your Vicious Weapon or Sneak Attack, only the raw damage dice of the weapon.

Great Weapon Fighting applies to the damage from the attack. So you do get the benefit from Vicious Weapon/Sneak Attack - as well as True Strike, Conjure Minor Elementals (when it is used with a weapon) and any other source of weapon damage.

All of the damage from True Strike is dealt by the weapon. While I can understand that not reading the spell carefully can lead people to believe it might be 'spell damage', it states outright that the damage is from the weapon.

 
Almost everything that you've just said is wrong.

A Vicious Weapon's extra damage is part of the definition of that weapon. It absolutely is part of the weapon's damage dice. If you have a Vicious Maul, you have a magical maul that deals 4d6 bludgeoning damage.

Great Weapon Fighting applies to the damage from the weapon. While it's easy to interpret it as all the damage from the attack, an SAC entry contradicts this:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/sae/sage-advice-compendium#SAC-Feat-GreatWeaponFighting1

If you use Great Weapon Fighting with a spell like Divine Smite or Hex, do you get to treat any 1 or 2 you roll for the additional damage as a 3?

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 treat any 1 or 2 you roll on the weapon’s 2d6 as a 3. If you cast Divine Smite after hitting with this attack, you can’t treat a 1 or 2 rolled for the spell’s damage as a 3.

True Strike states that the extra damage that you get from level 5 is from the attack, not the weapon:
"the attack deals extra Radiant damage when you reach levels 5..."

Quote from Tarod_ >>

True Strike is a trap written by WotC to have adventurers arguing on the Internet about the attack type (weapon, spell, both?) or range (you, your weapon, a creature, all?) for eternity.

 
You know I think you may be on to something here... It might also explain why Stealth is designed like it is...

Anyone who's claiming that the rules definitively establish how True Strike behaves in relation to Agonizing Blast, Radiant Soul, etc, is wrong. They establish nothing.

I'm of the belief that they should boost it, because of how I read the rules, but, more importantly, because of the duck principle. To the average player, True Strike is a cantrip you use to make attacks, just like Eldritch Blast. They expect it to quack, so it should quack. 

Quote from jl8e >>

Anyone who's claiming that the rules definitively establish how True Strike behaves in relation to Agonizing Blast, Radiant Soul, etc, is wrong. They establish nothing.

I'm of the belief that they should boost it, because of how I read the rules, but, more importantly, because of the duck principle. To the average player, True Strike is a cantrip you use to make attacks, just like Eldritch Blast. They expect it to quack, so it should quack. 

I'm of the opinion that True Strike does not need buffs, as it's already better than any offensive cantrip except sometimes eldritch blast, and it should be rewritten to explicitly forbid interaction with any effect that boosts spell attacks or spell damage.

Regarding Great Weapon Fighting and Savage Attacker, there's also a SAC entry for Savage Attacker:

Does the benefit of the Savage Attacker feat apply to additional effects like the Rogue’s Sneak Attack or the Paladin’s Divine Smite?

No. The benefit of Savage Attacker applies only to rolls of the weapon’s damage dice, not to any extra damage that a feature or other ability might grant.

And while not official ruling, I shared in Savage Attacker, Great Weapon Fighting and extra damage dice this conversation with the Dev (link to sageadvice.eu) mentioning Flame Tongue and Frost Brand:

@Il_Gama Great Weapon Fighting and Battlemaster' Sweeping Attack: may I reroll the 1 and 2 of the superiority die?
@JeremyECrawford Great Weapon Fighting works only with the damage dice of the qualifying weapon.
@<> What if you’ve got a weird situation like a greatsword flametongue or frostbrand? Still only the 2d6 from the greatsword?
@JeremyECrawford Those are weapons. Their dice are affected.
@<> Sorry, to clarify just in case. 2d6 slashing +2d6 fire (for example). The 2d6 fire damage dice are re-rollable as they are weapon dice?
@JeremyECrawford Yes. The description of the flame tongue (the weapon) even says the sword deals the extra damage.

If anyone wanted to follow that ruling, GFW then interacts with Vicious Weapon and similar magic weapons.