How are the tweets not RAI? One of them literally says what they intended?
Quoting JC himself: "If someone has told you that my tweets are rules in the game you're playing, that game isn't D&D."
You’re misunderstanding things in a pretty big way. Saying that something is “RAI” doesn’t mean saying that it’s “rules in the game.” RAI is the intent of a rule, which Crawford is uniquely able to tweet about, and which isn’t necessarily what the rule actually is.
Let me try again, here are four cases, all with saves to avoid confusing the issue.
Giant Poisonous Snake Attack: Bite.Melee Weapon Attack:+6 to hit, reach 10 ft., one target. Hit: 6 (1d4 + 4) piercing damage, and the target must make a DC 11 Constitution saving throw, taking 10 (3d6) poison damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.
Assassin: Shortsword.Melee Weapon Attack:+6 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 6 (1d6 + 3) piercing damage, and the target must make a DC 15 Constitution saving throw, taking 24 (7d6) poison damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.
Veteran using a shortsword poisoned with Serpent Venom: Shortsword.Melee Weapon Attack:+5 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 6 (1d6 + 3) piercing damage. Injury poison can be applied to weapons, ammunition, trap components, and other objects that deal piercing or slashing damage and remains potent until delivered through a wound or washed off. A creature that takes piercing or slashing damage from an object coated with the poison is exposed to its effects. A creature subjected to this poison must succeed on a DC 11 Constitution saving throw, taking 10 (3d6) poison damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.
Veteran using a dagger of venom: Dagger.Melee Weapon Attack:+5 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 6 (1d4 + 3) piercing damage. You can use an action to cause thick, black poison to coat the blade. The poison remains for 1 minute or until an attack using this weapon hits a creature. That creature must succeed on a DC 15 Constitution saving throw or take 2d10 poison damage and become poisoned for 1 minute. The dagger can't be used this way again until the next dawn.
Can you please explain why you would gate some and not some others ?
I would allow criticals on options 1, 2, and 4, because in all those cases the poison damage is a consequence of a hit (the save does not adjust the dice rolled, it reduces the final damage; I count save negates as reducing damage to 0). In option 3 the poison damage is a consequence of injury (and in fact could trigger if the weapon did damage in a way that does not require an attack roll, such as using it in a trap) and thus not eligible for a critical.
Let me try again, here are four cases, all with saves to avoid confusing the issue.
Giant Poisonous Snake Attack: Bite.Melee Weapon Attack:+6 to hit, reach 10 ft., one target. Hit: 6 (1d4 + 4) piercing damage, and the target must make a DC 11 Constitution saving throw, taking 10 (3d6) poison damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.
Assassin: Shortsword.Melee Weapon Attack:+6 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 6 (1d6 + 3) piercing damage, and the target must make a DC 15 Constitution saving throw, taking 24 (7d6) poison damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.
Veteran using a shortsword poisoned with Serpent Venom: Shortsword.Melee Weapon Attack:+5 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 6 (1d6 + 3) piercing damage. Injury poison can be applied to weapons, ammunition, trap components, and other objects that deal piercing or slashing damage and remains potent until delivered through a wound or washed off. A creature that takes piercing or slashing damage from an object coated with the poison is exposed to its effects. A creature subjected to this poison must succeed on a DC 11 Constitution saving throw, taking 10 (3d6) poison damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.
Veteran using a dagger of venom: Dagger.Melee Weapon Attack:+5 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 6 (1d4 + 3) piercing damage. You can use an action to cause thick, black poison to coat the blade. The poison remains for 1 minute or until an attack using this weapon hits a creature. That creature must succeed on a DC 15 Constitution saving throw or take 2d10 poison damage and become poisoned for 1 minute. The dagger can't be used this way again until the next dawn.
Can you please explain why you would gate some and not some others ?
I would allow criticals on options 1, 2, and 4, because in all those cases the poison damage is a consequence of a hit (the save does not adjust the dice rolled, it reduces the final damage; I count save negates as reducing damage to 0). In option 3 the poison damage is a consequence of injury (and in fact could trigger if the weapon did damage in a way that does not require an attack roll, such as using it in a trap) and thus not eligible for a critical.
I definitely agree on #1 and 2, and believe this would be another fair ruling for #4 (the rules don't really say that you can't crit on a save, just that you can on an attack roll, and in this case and in #1 & 2 the save is a result of the attack roll).
So it's a weapon dealing damage on a critical hit, it is the consequence of a hit that created an injury but just because there is an additional requirement, the rule changes ?
It's not an additional requirement. The rules for injury poisons do not require a hit (while I can't think of any published methods whereby a weapon does damage in a way that does not require a hit, it isn't forbidden).
I would allow criticals on options 1, 2, and 4, because in all those cases the poison damage is a consequence of a hit
You are misreading the rule on criticals, they do not affect "consequences of a hit", they affect the damage of an attack.
(the save does not adjust the dice rolled
But the save never adjusts the dices rolled ! You do not only roll 4d6 when you save against a fireball, you roll 8d6 and divide the result by two.
, it reduces the final damage; I count save negates as reducing damage to 0). In option 3 the poison damage is a consequence of injury (and in fact could trigger if the weapon did damage in a way that does not require an attack roll, such as using it in a trap) and thus not eligible for a critical.
So it's a weapon dealing damage on a critical hit, it is the consequence of a hit that created an injury but just because there is an additional requirement, the rule changes ?
Again, why do you have to make this so complicated when the game designer's intent is clear ?
From the Critical Hit section:
When you score a critical hit, you get to roll extra dice for the attack's damage against the target. Roll all of the attack's damage dice twice and add them together. Then add any relevant modifiers as normal. To speed up play, you can roll all the damage dice at once.
Critical hits change the damage dice. There is clear difference in changes to damage dice and changes to damage. (one is a subset of the other). When we have been interpreting what doubles, we look at the dice, not final damage or even the rolled result of said dice. On #1, #2, (and arguably #4 given Pantagruel's interpretation), the dice involved are involved because they follow a hit from an attack roll.
So it's a weapon dealing damage on a critical hit, it is the consequence of a hit that created an injury but just because there is an additional requirement, the rule changes ?
It's not an additional requirement. The rules for injury poisons do not require a hit (while I can't think of any published methods whereby a weapon does damage in a way that does not require a hit, it isn't forbidden).
Really? Poison damage as a result of piercing damage as a result a hit isn’t “involved” in that hit just because in some completely different situation, it could have been a result of something other than a hit?
How are the tweets not RAI? One of them literally says what they intended?
Quoting JC himself: "If someone has told you that my tweets are rules in the game you're playing, that game isn't D&D."
You’re misunderstanding things in a pretty big way. Saying that something is “RAI” doesn’t mean saying that it’s “rules in the game.” RAI is the intent of a rule, which Crawford is uniquely able to tweet about, and which isn’t necessarily what the rule actually is.
Rules as intended are still rules. Changing it around to say that it's "the intent of the rule" doesn't change that.
How are the tweets not RAI? One of them literally says what they intended?
Quoting JC himself: "If someone has told you that my tweets are rules in the game you're playing, that game isn't D&D."
You’re misunderstanding things in a pretty big way. Saying that something is “RAI” doesn’t mean saying that it’s “rules in the game.” RAI is the intent of a rule, which Crawford is uniquely able to tweet about, and which isn’t necessarily what the rule actually is.
Rules as intended are still rules. Changing it around to say that it's "the intent of the rule" doesn't change that.
Not every term follows the literal meaning of the words that make it up, and not every instance of Crawford saying the word “rule” follows the exact same sense of the word.
How are the tweets not RAI? One of them literally says what they intended?
Quoting JC himself: "If someone has told you that my tweets are rules in the game you're playing, that game isn't D&D."
You’re misunderstanding things in a pretty big way. Saying that something is “RAI” doesn’t mean saying that it’s “rules in the game.” RAI is the intent of a rule, which Crawford is uniquely able to tweet about, and which isn’t necessarily what the rule actually is.
Rules as intended are still rules. Changing it around to say that it's "the intent of the rule" doesn't change that.
Not every term follows the literal meaning of the words that make it up, and not every instance of Crawford saying the word “rule” follows the exact same sense of the word.
Sure. But the intent of JC's tweet in question is that we shouldn't use his tweets as rules, yes? It feels a bit far-fetched to say that "that's not what he meant" when he explicitly says "don't use my tweets as rules if you play D&D because if you do, that's not D&D anymore". Then again, everyone can use whatever sources they want for their games, I've just pointed out that the man himself said not to use his tweets as a source for rules. Up to you and me and everyone else if we want to agree with him on that.
It sure reads as though Lostwhilefishing should go back and read what is said about RAI in the intro to the SAC though.
I'm not talking about the SAC but about the specific tweet being referred to.
WolfOfTheBees’s point is that the SAC’s explanation of what “RAI” means makes it abundantly clear that it’s not what Crawford was talking about when he said “If someone told you my tweets are rules of a game... blah blah blah.”
Basically, RAW this all depends on how you interpret the word "involves" and how that has to do with words (let's use 1d4 as a example) such as
"extra 1d4" "bonus 1d4" ", and 1d4" ". 1d4" (words are bolded for readability, not emphasis), and also if adding a saving throw un-"involves" the damage roll or not.
If I got a critical on a attack that does 1d6 damage, and a additional 1d4. Is the 1d4 involved with the 1d6 or no? 1d6. Injury damage 1d4. 1d6, bonus 1d6. 1d6, extra 1d4. Etc.
There's also the Dagger of Venom too I guess, that's it's own category but still is testing your interpretation of "involves". Since this debate is about a somewhat vague definition in a vaguely worded tabletop game, we are probably going to go nowhere.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
Indeed, if it was only about a vague definition in the void, I would agree with you. It is not, however, that vague, and we have a clear statement from the lead developed about what the intent of the rules are, in addition to having at least one interpretation that fits all the RAW and corresponds to that intent in addition to being in favour of the players.
In the end,there are two problems. The first is that 5e is generally sloppily worded, due to a desire to use everyday language instead of creating a technical lexicon (this makes a document look friendlier to readers, but makes it considerably harder to actually use). The second is that RAW and RAI are not consistent.As written, if a giant poisonous snake bites a werewolf, the werewolf takes 3d6 poison damage (Con save, DC 11, for half), whereas if you poison a (non-magical, non-silver) dagger with Serpent Venom (Injury) and stab a werewolf, the werewolf doesn't take any damage.
The rule you are in favor is not completely unjustified, but it's really not the natural reading of the rules.
Oh hey three years ago. I'm not going to comment on the rules or rules intention here. I think today we still only have a RAI confirmation at most. I'm just going to lay out how I do it and supporting logic. I don't double poison die because many monsters with poison have some really high possible damage. I give the save disadvantage instead. It has less impact on low-save players and it feels cool when you pass. It's no big deal looking at say a giant spider. 2d8 more on a cr 1 monster that has one attack: makes sense. But there are also monsters that can dish out unreal poison damage on a crit, far beyond other creatures of their level. Small offenders include the giant wolf spider and wasp, 2d6 on a CR 1/4 and 3d6 on a CR 1/2. A CR 1/4 crit hitting for 2d6+1+4d6 (22) or CR 1/2 doing 2d6+2+6d6 (30) is a bit questionable, even if you can save to reduce it. You also have to deal with paralysis if it downs you, and G.Wolf Spiders are likely to attack in swarms or with giant spider webs leaving you restrained. The number of crits can change the threat level fast.
But the real offenders are things like Giant Poisonous Snakes (why is this CR 1/4?), Wyverns and Assassins. Now assassins you might say "hey it's a CR8 assassin it SHOULD crit you hard" and yes I get that HOWEVER! 1) It can get an auto-crit. 2) It already has sneak attack. 3) It has 2 attacks (chances to crit) 4) The poison is strong, not easy to resist, applies to every attack. "Suddenly a blade plunges into your back, dealing 10d6+3 (38) piercing damage, make a save or take 14d6 (49) poison, now it's going to attack you again with advantage for like 30 more damage. On your turn the surprised condition ends and it is now the assassins turn again." But yes the assassin is a thematically odd one here and supposed to be a deadly mini-boss, let's look at the wyvern. Only one of its attacks is poisoned, but it's a doozy, 4d6+4 piercing, 14d6 poison (67). Even a fire giant crit does about 3/4 of that. A tarrasque bite crit does slightly less than the wyvern tail. I could live with that, but I prefer to make the poison more reliable on a crit instead so that it's not devastating if you fail the save. The bugs with easy saves get to have poison damage on their crits without having bonkers max damage, since disadvantage on the save will proportionally effect the easiest saves the most.
Quoting JC himself:
"If someone has told you that my tweets are rules in the game you're playing, that game isn't D&D."
RAI- rules as intended.
The tweet illustrates the intended interpretation and goal for a rule.
the tweet did not say it was RAW.
precision of language is important, and is the reason we are 6 pages into what should be a simple Q&A.
me: the tweet was literally about the intent behind a rule, how does that not convey intent?
you: those tweets aren’t rules, JC even said it himself!
me right now: I never said the tweet was a rule...?
You’re misunderstanding things in a pretty big way. Saying that something is “RAI” doesn’t mean saying that it’s “rules in the game.” RAI is the intent of a rule, which Crawford is uniquely able to tweet about, and which isn’t necessarily what the rule actually is.
I would allow criticals on options 1, 2, and 4, because in all those cases the poison damage is a consequence of a hit (the save does not adjust the dice rolled, it reduces the final damage; I count save negates as reducing damage to 0). In option 3 the poison damage is a consequence of injury (and in fact could trigger if the weapon did damage in a way that does not require an attack roll, such as using it in a trap) and thus not eligible for a critical.
I definitely agree on #1 and 2, and believe this would be another fair ruling for #4 (the rules don't really say that you can't crit on a save, just that you can on an attack roll, and in this case and in #1 & 2 the save is a result of the attack roll).
The affect damage involved with the attack. We've gone over this ground before.
It's not an additional requirement. The rules for injury poisons do not require a hit (while I can't think of any published methods whereby a weapon does damage in a way that does not require a hit, it isn't forbidden).
From the Critical Hit section:
When you score a critical hit, you get to roll extra dice for the attack's damage against the target. Roll all of the attack's damage dice twice and add them together. Then add any relevant modifiers as normal. To speed up play, you can roll all the damage dice at once.
Critical hits change the damage dice. There is clear difference in changes to damage dice and changes to damage. (one is a subset of the other). When we have been interpreting what doubles, we look at the dice, not final damage or even the rolled result of said dice. On #1, #2, (and arguably #4 given Pantagruel's interpretation), the dice involved are involved because they follow a hit from an attack roll.
Really? Poison damage as a result of piercing damage as a result a hit isn’t “involved” in that hit just because in some completely different situation, it could have been a result of something other than a hit?
Rules as intended are still rules. Changing it around to say that it's "the intent of the rule" doesn't change that.
Not every term follows the literal meaning of the words that make it up, and not every instance of Crawford saying the word “rule” follows the exact same sense of the word.
If the attack involves other damage dice, such as from the rogue's Sneak Attack feature, you roll those dice twice as well.
Sure. But the intent of JC's tweet in question is that we shouldn't use his tweets as rules, yes? It feels a bit far-fetched to say that "that's not what he meant" when he explicitly says "don't use my tweets as rules if you play D&D because if you do, that's not D&D anymore". Then again, everyone can use whatever sources they want for their games, I've just pointed out that the man himself said not to use his tweets as a source for rules. Up to you and me and everyone else if we want to agree with him on that.
This thread has gone wild.
It sure reads as though Lostwhilefishing should go back and read what is said about RAI in the intro to the SAC though.
I'm not talking about the SAC but about the specific tweet being referred to.
WolfOfTheBees’s point is that the SAC’s explanation of what “RAI” means makes it abundantly clear that it’s not what Crawford was talking about when he said “If someone told you my tweets are rules of a game... blah blah blah.”
Basically, RAW this all depends on how you interpret the word "involves" and how that has to do with words (let's use 1d4 as a example) such as
"extra 1d4" "bonus 1d4" ", and 1d4" ". 1d4" (words are bolded for readability, not emphasis), and also if adding a saving throw un-"involves" the damage roll or not.
If I got a critical on a attack that does 1d6 damage, and a additional 1d4. Is the 1d4 involved with the 1d6 or no? 1d6. Injury damage 1d4. 1d6, bonus 1d6. 1d6, extra 1d4. Etc.
There's also the Dagger of Venom too I guess, that's it's own category but still is testing your interpretation of "involves". Since this debate is about a somewhat vague definition in a vaguely worded tabletop game, we are probably going to go nowhere.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
In the end,there are two problems. The first is that 5e is generally sloppily worded, due to a desire to use everyday language instead of creating a technical lexicon (this makes a document look friendlier to readers, but makes it considerably harder to actually use). The second is that RAW and RAI are not consistent.As written, if a giant poisonous snake bites a werewolf, the werewolf takes 3d6 poison damage (Con save, DC 11, for half), whereas if you poison a (non-magical, non-silver) dagger with Serpent Venom (Injury) and stab a werewolf, the werewolf doesn't take any damage.
The rule you are in favor is not completely unjustified, but it's really not the natural reading of the rules.
Oh hey three years ago.
I'm not going to comment on the rules or rules intention here. I think today we still only have a RAI confirmation at most.
I'm just going to lay out how I do it and supporting logic. I don't double poison die because many monsters with poison have some really high possible damage.
I give the save disadvantage instead. It has less impact on low-save players and it feels cool when you pass.
It's no big deal looking at say a giant spider. 2d8 more on a cr 1 monster that has one attack: makes sense.
But there are also monsters that can dish out unreal poison damage on a crit, far beyond other creatures of their level.
Small offenders include the giant wolf spider and wasp, 2d6 on a CR 1/4 and 3d6 on a CR 1/2.
A CR 1/4 crit hitting for 2d6+1+4d6 (22) or CR 1/2 doing 2d6+2+6d6 (30) is a bit questionable, even if you can save to reduce it.
You also have to deal with paralysis if it downs you, and G.Wolf Spiders are likely to attack in swarms or with giant spider webs leaving you restrained. The number of crits can change the threat level fast.
But the real offenders are things like Giant Poisonous Snakes (why is this CR 1/4?), Wyverns and Assassins.
Now assassins you might say "hey it's a CR8 assassin it SHOULD crit you hard" and yes I get that HOWEVER!
1) It can get an auto-crit. 2) It already has sneak attack. 3) It has 2 attacks (chances to crit) 4) The poison is strong, not easy to resist, applies to every attack.
"Suddenly a blade plunges into your back, dealing 10d6+3 (38) piercing damage, make a save or take 14d6 (49) poison, now it's going to attack you again with advantage for like 30 more damage. On your turn the surprised condition ends and it is now the assassins turn again."
But yes the assassin is a thematically odd one here and supposed to be a deadly mini-boss, let's look at the wyvern.
Only one of its attacks is poisoned, but it's a doozy, 4d6+4 piercing, 14d6 poison (67).
Even a fire giant crit does about 3/4 of that. A tarrasque bite crit does slightly less than the wyvern tail.
I could live with that, but I prefer to make the poison more reliable on a crit instead so that it's not devastating if you fail the save.
The bugs with easy saves get to have poison damage on their crits without having bonkers max damage, since disadvantage on the save will proportionally effect the easiest saves the most.
Life is the game.
JC and Sage Advice says this:
https://www.sageadvice.eu/critical-poison/ "The intent is no. The saving throw, not the attack, determines whether the poison takes effect after a hit."
and
https://www.sageadvice.eu/critical-poison-damage/ "Any damage dice delivered by a critical hit—as opposed to a saving throw—are rolled twice."
and
https://www.sageadvice.eu/i-know-attacks-that-require-saves-dont-double-on-a-criical-but/ "I know attacks that require saves don't double on a crit, but what if it's a save that still does damage even on a fail?" "Damage that is associated with a save (whether you succeed or fail) isn't affected by a critical hit."