0 is a number. So technically if you have “taken 0 damage,” you have taken “an amount of damage.”
Go back to a hypothetical:
I say "if you do this for me, you can have all the gold bars I own"
You ask "do this own any gold bars"
I answer "yes"
You do the work for me and ask for the gold bars, and I tell you "yes, you can have all zero bars I own"
Would you accept that I'd been honest with you in saying I owned some gold bars? No, you would not, this quite rightly say I'd lied to you, and that owning zero gold bars was not owning any gold bars.
The same applies here. If the amount of bludgeoning damage dealt is zero, then you have not dealt bludgeoning damage and the trigger doesn't apply.
I can see that the other interpretation can make sense, depending on how you choose to interpret different phrases. However, given conflicting information in the rules, I'll take the plain English definition of "deal damage", which would exclude something which didn't deal any damage.
All the rules available indicate that 0 damage is an amount of damage.
We are not arguing logic, we are arguing rules. Find 1 rule that says 0 damage is no damage.
From the DMG, quoted above:
'Note that many features that are reactive to attacks use different wording. A feature that triggers "when you are hit/when you hit" and a feature that triggers "when you are damaged/when you deal damage" are not quite the same thing. The "hit" kind of feature would trigger on a hit even if the damage is 0, whereas the "damage" kind would trigger only if the damage was 1 or greater'
Aha. Thank you. I missed that among the avalanche of walls of texts.
Ok logic and rules match, 0 damage is not damage.
Of course, the original post had a different issue that has already been answered.
0 is a number. So technically if you have “taken 0 damage,” you have taken “an amount of damage.”
Go back to a hypothetical:
I say "if you do this for me, you can have all the gold bars I own"
You ask "do this own any gold bars"
I answer "yes"
You do the work for me and ask for the gold bars, and I tell you "yes, you can have all zero bars I own"
Would you accept that I'd been honest with you in saying I owned some gold bars? No, you would not, this quite rightly say I'd lied to you, and that owning zero gold bars was not owning any gold bars.
The same applies here. If the amount of bludgeoning damage dealt is zero, then you have not dealt bludgeoning damage and the trigger doesn't apply.
I can see that the other interpretation can make sense, depending on how you choose to interpret different phrases. However, given conflicting information in the rules, I'll take the plain English definition of "deal damage", which would exclude something which didn't deal any damage.
Oh great, the goalpost moved.
That analogy is not one to one with the one at hand. Damage is determined after hit. The condition for the feature was already met before damage was rolled. It doesn't retroactively become unmet.
Please note, I am not "discussing in bad faith". I am not pointing to rules because the examples would just highlight exactly the same issue: That a condition that you hit with an attack which deals X damage is unclear, and can be interpreted as either a condition of the damage type which would be caused if any damage were caused (e.g. the weapon's damage type) or as an additional requirement on the trigger that damage is caused, and that it be of a particular type. I cannot point to a rule which clarifies this, as it is an ambiguity in the rules themselves and is present on all similar rules which I have found.
The examples you list are all of an effect which causes damage. In all of these it, is specifying the type and amount of damage which are caused. They are not specifying the trigger for an effect. It is also impossible for any of them to cause zero damage, so there would be no need for clarification anyway.
The only rule I have seen is one which specifies that "you can deal 0 damage", however as this seems to be intended to clarify that it is impossible to deal negative damage and the DMG specifies that conditions which depend on damage being dealt only trigger on damage of 1 or greater, we come back to the same interpretation question as above: Is it just specifying a damage type, or must it actually deal some of that damage?
My question over the interpretation of the phrase "an attack which hits and causes damage" is not down to a rule which exists, it is assessing how it should be interpreted were it to exist within the rules, as it is very close to the wording in the Slasher feat and others, but is clearer and easier to interpret. Taking your interpretation of Slasher, it would be any attack which hit which had the potential to cause damage, whether it actually did or not. However, this does not fit with the plain English interpretation, IMHO, which would be that you must hit and you must cause some (i.e. 1 or more) damage. Extending that interpretation to the Slasher feat etc, you are adding the damage type requirement on top of this, making it that you must hit, you must cause some damage, and that damage be of a particular type.
I have searched and cannot find any rule or ruling (official or otherwise) which specifically states that "hit which deals X damage" is only a limitation on the attack's damage type and doesn't require any damage to be done. If you can point to one, I will concede the point. Otherwise, there is still an ambiguity, and I maintain that the most logical plain English interpretation would lead to a requirement that damage is actually caused.
Damage is determined after hit. The condition for the feature was already met before damage was rolled. It doesn't retroactively become unmet.
Only one part of the condition is met, depending on interpretation. On a hit, you have satisfied "You hit with an attack". You have not yet met "which deals bludgeoning damage", unless you are going to accept it as only a restraint upon the damage type assigned to the weapon. It is certainly not clear that it would be so.
0 is a number. So technically if you have “taken 0 damage,” you have taken “an amount of damage.”
Go back to a hypothetical:
I say "if you do this for me, you can have all the gold bars I own"
You ask "do this own any gold bars"
I answer "yes"
You do the work for me and ask for the gold bars, and I tell you "yes, you can have all zero bars I own"
Would you accept that I'd been honest with you in saying I owned some gold bars? No, you would not, this quite rightly say I'd lied to you, and that owning zero gold bars was not owning any gold bars.
The same applies here. If the amount of bludgeoning damage dealt is zero, then you have not dealt bludgeoning damage and the trigger doesn't apply.
I can see that the other interpretation can make sense, depending on how you choose to interpret different phrases. However, given conflicting information in the rules, I'll take the plain English definition of "deal damage", which would exclude something which didn't deal any damage.
That analogy is horse poopy. Every mathematician in the world will tell you that there is a distinction between “none” and “0.” That’s why other game companies (like GW) write “0” when they mean “0,” and write “—“ when they mean “none.” If WotC was as clear with their language, 5e wouldn’t have half the debates about rules that it does.
As a mathematician myself, I'd disagree that there is a mathematical difference between having a quantity of zero of something and having none of something. A quantity of zero is identical to none. It has just been codified as a numerical value, which allows mathematics to work. This was a revolutionary concept when first discovered, as the sum 1-1; would not have had a numerical answer beforehand, the answer would have been "none".
The fact that this is used differently in game rules is fine when that is called out clearly in the rules. In this case, there are actually two conflicting rules, one which specifies that you can have zero damage (fair enough), and one which specifies that an effect triggered on damage dealt must have at least 1 damage dealt. Therefore, again, we come back to: is this just a limitation on the weapon's damage type, or is it an additional requirement for the trigger that damage is dealt? If the second, the DMG clearly states that it must be 1 or more damage.
Again, if you can show me a rule or ruling which shows which is correct, great. I have not been able to find one. Without a ruling, I maintain this is completely ambiguous and both are valid interpretations, but I would interpret it that it must cause some damage.
'“0 damage” is an amount of damage represented by a whole number. “No damage” is no damage.'
True, but they are fundamentally identical. However, I can understand that there can be a difference within the rules systems of games or in other situations.
However, even if there is a difference and zero damage can count as dealing damage it doesn't answer this question. Given the DMG clearly states that a trigger for an effect on dealing damage requires that at least 1 damage is caused, the whole thing hinges on: is "deals bludgeoning damage" merely a requirement on the damage type of the weapon, or is it a part of the trigger requiring that damage is actually dealt? I've seen nothing which clarifies this, and so I'd fall back on the plain English interpretation that it is a part of the trigger, requiring both a hit and damage to be dealt, which would exclude zero damage per the DMG.
In game terms, if an effect triggers on taking damage, then taking 0 damage does not trigger the effect. If it triggers on being hit, then a successful hit dealing 0 damage does trigger the effect.
As a mathematician myself, I'd disagree that there is a mathematical difference between having a quantity of zero of something and having none of something.
This is so false that I doubt the first four words of your response. You learn that in high school algebra. Null =/= 0. Not in mathematics, not in coding, and I'd even argue not in language. Quick Google search tells you exactly this.
The issue strictly comes down to wording, which is terrible. If that phrase regarding "The "hit" kind of feature would trigger on a hit even if the damage is 0, whereas the "damage" kind would trigger only if the damage was 1 or greater" is in the DMG (can't find it myself, please include a page number) then it only slightly solves the issue, even.
There is this gem in the DMG though (p242): "You determine the consequences of attack rolls, ability checks, and saving throws. In most cases, doing so is straightforward. When an attack hits, it deals damage." Not "it can deal damage", just "it deals damage". Now, admittedly, this is an extremely general rule so just about every other rule probably supersedes it.
So the feat wording, which is at the core of the question, is outside of that "hitting" and "dealing damage" are separate categories distinction. It says, "when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage", which is frustratingly worded especially when taking into account the help provided from the DMG quote others are referencing.
I'd, personally, argue that in congruence with "when an attack hits, it deals damage" and the fact that 0 =/= null, that a successful attack dealing 0 bludgeoning damage activates the feat. A rundown:
Attack roll to see if you hit. It succeeds! Therefore the first stipulation is met ("when you hit a creature with an attack...").
Now roll for damage. Oh no! A one! And I only have 8 STR! Well, luckily between "When an attack hits, it deals damage" and "The "hit" kind of feature would trigger on a hit even if the damage is 0", that seems to imply that 1-1 = 0 still means it hits for 0 damage, NOT no damage. Therefore the second stipulation is met ("...that deals [0] bludgeoning damage").
Success! I push my enemy back 5 feet.
Weak wizard punches an ogre for 1 + (-1 STR)? Push it back anyways.
Frankly, this feat in this case comes down to DM interpretation and I don't think there's necessarily a wrong answer. But I do feel there is a distinct difference between 0 and no/null damage, and every relevant background tells you so... {} is not {0} (math), NaN is not 0 (coding), and $0 in your bank account is different than not having a bank account at all (language).
Damage is determined after hit. The condition for the feature was already met before damage was rolled. It doesn't retroactively become unmet.
Only one part of the condition is met, depending on interpretation. On a hit, you have satisfied "You hit with an attack". You have not yet met "which deals bludgeoning damage", unless you are going to accept it as only a restraint upon the damage type assigned to the weapon. It is certainly not clear that it would be so.
If the attack you hit with is not "an attack that deals bludgeoning damage" at the time of the hit, then you did not hit with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage.
If that were the case, injury poison could not be used:
Injury poison can be applied to weapons, ammunition, trap components, and other objects that deal piercing or slashing damage
"But how do we know the weapon deals piercing or slashing damage until after rolling damage?" This is your argument.
It is an attack that deals bludgeoning damage by definition, even if no damage is dealt.
When it comes to the maths, I disagree still: null, {}, NaN are not the same as "none". Zero is the numerical representation of the concept of none. If someone asks how much money you have, $0 and none are identical answers. Null means the lack of a value, {} is an empty set, NaN is "not a number", and all of these are fundamentally different to either zero or none. If somebody have a mathematical sun in words as "if Alice has three apples and Bob has none, how many do they have in total?", you would be able to easily translate that to "3+0=3" because they are fundamentally the same.
As for your answer regarding the feat, I can see both sides, which is why I raised it in the first place. I agree this will be down to a DM ruling. Personally, I think my call would be that it is part of the trigger, hence the damage must be greater than or equal to 1. This is because of both the DMG "damage trigger must be greater than zero" role and because it feels right in plain English. But there definitely isn't a single, unquestionable response.
Honestly, I bet the dumb wording of the feat comes back to fists not being "weapons" by RAW. This whole problem is solved by saying "when you hit a creature with a weapon that deals bludgeoning damage", but then unarmed strikes wouldn't qualify ... and monks seem to be one of the major target audiences for this feat.
So how about we just fix it to say this: "when you hit a creature with a weapon or an unarmed strike that deals bludgeoning damage..."
When it comes to the maths, I disagree still: null, {}, NaN are not the same as "none". Zero is the numerical representation of the concept of none. If someone asks how much money you have, $0 and none are identical answers. Null means the lack of a value, {} is an empty set, NaN is "not a number", and all of these are fundamentally different to either zero or none. If somebody have a mathematical sun in words as "if Alice has three apples and Bob has none, how many do they have in total?", you would be able to easily translate that to "3+0=3" because they are fundamentally the same.
As for your answer regarding the feat, I can see both sides, which is why I raised it in the first place. I agree this will be down to a DM ruling. Personally, I think my call would be that it is part of the trigger, hence the damage must be greater than 1. This is because of both the DMG "damage trigger must be greater than zero" role and because it feels right in plain English. But there definitely isn't a single, unquestionable response.
I think you meant to write“greater than or equal to 1” since “greater than 0” ≠ “greater than 1.” Where do you work as a mathematician? I ask so I know to double check their figures.
(Regarding whether "none" means "null" or "zero", I think we disagree, but that just comes down to math not projecting 1-to-1 on language. I'd say that if a student gave me an answer to "what is 3 minus 3" and said "none", then that would be wrong, but your example also makes sense. Yay, the inherently inexact nature of language!)
Ok guys, no personal attacks. Keep it about rules.
The topic of whether 0 damage is not damage has been covered (it isn't damage).
Currently the topic of contention is whether an attack that deals bludgeoning damage is an attack the deals bludgeoning damage when it is made or after it deals damage
I'm of the opinion that an attack that deals bludgeoning damage is always so by definition. Urth seems to be of the opinion that it is in a quantum state of uncertainty until after it is measured, afterward it will have always been so.
Yes, you are correct, I made a small mistake in a final summary post of a casual discussion which I'm trying to type on my mobile. It should have been greater than or equal to, I'll correct it now. Thanks 😏
Honestly, I bet the dumb wording of the feat comes back to fists not being "weapons" by RAW. This whole problem is solved by saying "when you hit a creature with a weapon that deals bludgeoning damage", but then unarmed strikes wouldn't qualify ... and monks seem to be one of the major target audiences for this feat.
So how about we just fix it to say this: "when you hit a creature with a weapon or an unarmed strike that deals bludgeoning damage..."
Not so. These feats also work with spell attacks that deal the appropriate types of damage, in this case things like Magic Stone and Arcane Hand/Bigby’s Hand.
Yes, you are correct, I made a small mistake in a final summary post of a casual discussion which I'm trying to type on my mobile. It should have been greater than or equal to, I'll correct it now. Thanks 😏
It even easier on mobile because the mobile browser can actually add an underscore (which this site cannot for some bizarre reason) so you can actually create those symbols like this: <>
Go back to a hypothetical:
I say "if you do this for me, you can have all the gold bars I own"
You ask "do this own any gold bars"
I answer "yes"
You do the work for me and ask for the gold bars, and I tell you "yes, you can have all zero bars I own"
Would you accept that I'd been honest with you in saying I owned some gold bars? No, you would not, this quite rightly say I'd lied to you, and that owning zero gold bars was not owning any gold bars.
The same applies here. If the amount of bludgeoning damage dealt is zero, then you have not dealt bludgeoning damage and the trigger doesn't apply.
I can see that the other interpretation can make sense, depending on how you choose to interpret different phrases. However, given conflicting information in the rules, I'll take the plain English definition of "deal damage", which would exclude something which didn't deal any damage.
Aha. Thank you. I missed that among the avalanche of walls of texts.
Ok logic and rules match, 0 damage is not damage.
Of course, the original post had a different issue that has already been answered.
Oh great, the goalpost moved.
That analogy is not one to one with the one at hand. Damage is determined after hit. The condition for the feature was already met before damage was rolled. It doesn't retroactively become unmet.
Please note, I am not "discussing in bad faith". I am not pointing to rules because the examples would just highlight exactly the same issue: That a condition that you hit with an attack which deals X damage is unclear, and can be interpreted as either a condition of the damage type which would be caused if any damage were caused (e.g. the weapon's damage type) or as an additional requirement on the trigger that damage is caused, and that it be of a particular type. I cannot point to a rule which clarifies this, as it is an ambiguity in the rules themselves and is present on all similar rules which I have found.
The examples you list are all of an effect which causes damage. In all of these it, is specifying the type and amount of damage which are caused. They are not specifying the trigger for an effect. It is also impossible for any of them to cause zero damage, so there would be no need for clarification anyway.
The only rule I have seen is one which specifies that "you can deal 0 damage", however as this seems to be intended to clarify that it is impossible to deal negative damage and the DMG specifies that conditions which depend on damage being dealt only trigger on damage of 1 or greater, we come back to the same interpretation question as above: Is it just specifying a damage type, or must it actually deal some of that damage?
My question over the interpretation of the phrase "an attack which hits and causes damage" is not down to a rule which exists, it is assessing how it should be interpreted were it to exist within the rules, as it is very close to the wording in the Slasher feat and others, but is clearer and easier to interpret. Taking your interpretation of Slasher, it would be any attack which hit which had the potential to cause damage, whether it actually did or not. However, this does not fit with the plain English interpretation, IMHO, which would be that you must hit and you must cause some (i.e. 1 or more) damage. Extending that interpretation to the Slasher feat etc, you are adding the damage type requirement on top of this, making it that you must hit, you must cause some damage, and that damage be of a particular type.
I have searched and cannot find any rule or ruling (official or otherwise) which specifically states that "hit which deals X damage" is only a limitation on the attack's damage type and doesn't require any damage to be done. If you can point to one, I will concede the point. Otherwise, there is still an ambiguity, and I maintain that the most logical plain English interpretation would lead to a requirement that damage is actually caused.
Only one part of the condition is met, depending on interpretation. On a hit, you have satisfied "You hit with an attack". You have not yet met "which deals bludgeoning damage", unless you are going to accept it as only a restraint upon the damage type assigned to the weapon. It is certainly not clear that it would be so.
That analogy is horse poopy. Every mathematician in the world will tell you that there is a distinction between “none” and “0.” That’s why other game companies (like GW) write “0” when they mean “0,” and write “—“ when they mean “none.” If WotC was as clear with their language, 5e wouldn’t have half the debates about rules that it does.
Like this one for example: https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/rules-game-mechanics/77330-longstrider-on-a-creature-with-no-walking-speed
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
As a mathematician myself, I'd disagree that there is a mathematical difference between having a quantity of zero of something and having none of something. A quantity of zero is identical to none. It has just been codified as a numerical value, which allows mathematics to work. This was a revolutionary concept when first discovered, as the sum 1-1; would not have had a numerical answer beforehand, the answer would have been "none".
The fact that this is used differently in game rules is fine when that is called out clearly in the rules. In this case, there are actually two conflicting rules, one which specifies that you can have zero damage (fair enough), and one which specifies that an effect triggered on damage dealt must have at least 1 damage dealt. Therefore, again, we come back to: is this just a limitation on the weapon's damage type, or is it an additional requirement for the trigger that damage is dealt? If the second, the DMG clearly states that it must be 1 or more damage.
Again, if you can show me a rule or ruling which shows which is correct, great. I have not been able to find one. Without a ruling, I maintain this is completely ambiguous and both are valid interpretations, but I would interpret it that it must cause some damage.
I didn’t say there was a “mathematical difference,” I said there was a difference.
“0” is an integer. It can be added to, subtracted from, multiplied and divided by. It is a number.
“None” is a word, not a number. It can be used in a sentence, but not in a mathematical equation.
“0 damage” is an amount of damage represented by a whole number. “No damage” is no damage.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
'“0 damage” is an amount of damage represented by a whole number. “No damage” is no damage.'
True, but they are fundamentally identical. However, I can understand that there can be a difference within the rules systems of games or in other situations.
However, even if there is a difference and zero damage can count as dealing damage it doesn't answer this question. Given the DMG clearly states that a trigger for an effect on dealing damage requires that at least 1 damage is caused, the whole thing hinges on: is "deals bludgeoning damage" merely a requirement on the damage type of the weapon, or is it a part of the trigger requiring that damage is actually dealt? I've seen nothing which clarifies this, and so I'd fall back on the plain English interpretation that it is a part of the trigger, requiring both a hit and damage to be dealt, which would exclude zero damage per the DMG.
In game terms, if an effect triggers on taking damage, then taking 0 damage does not trigger the effect. If it triggers on being hit, then a successful hit dealing 0 damage does trigger the effect.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
This is so false that I doubt the first four words of your response. You learn that in high school algebra. Null =/= 0. Not in mathematics, not in coding, and I'd even argue not in language. Quick Google search tells you exactly this.
The issue strictly comes down to wording, which is terrible. If that phrase regarding "The "hit" kind of feature would trigger on a hit even if the damage is 0, whereas the "damage" kind would trigger only if the damage was 1 or greater" is in the DMG (can't find it myself, please include a page number) then it only slightly solves the issue, even.
There is this gem in the DMG though (p242): "You determine the consequences of attack rolls, ability checks, and saving throws. In most cases, doing so is straightforward. When an attack hits, it deals damage." Not "it can deal damage", just "it deals damage". Now, admittedly, this is an extremely general rule so just about every other rule probably supersedes it.
So the feat wording, which is at the core of the question, is outside of that "hitting" and "dealing damage" are separate categories distinction. It says, "when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage", which is frustratingly worded especially when taking into account the help provided from the DMG quote others are referencing.
I'd, personally, argue that in congruence with "when an attack hits, it deals damage" and the fact that 0 =/= null, that a successful attack dealing 0 bludgeoning damage activates the feat. A rundown:
Weak wizard punches an ogre for 1 + (-1 STR)? Push it back anyways.
Frankly, this feat in this case comes down to DM interpretation and I don't think there's necessarily a wrong answer. But I do feel there is a distinct difference between 0 and no/null damage, and every relevant background tells you so... {} is not {0} (math), NaN is not 0 (coding), and $0 in your bank account is different than not having a bank account at all (language).
If the attack you hit with is not "an attack that deals bludgeoning damage" at the time of the hit, then you did not hit with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage.
If that were the case, injury poison could not be used:
"But how do we know the weapon deals piercing or slashing damage until after rolling damage?" This is your argument.
It is an attack that deals bludgeoning damage by definition, even if no damage is dealt.
When it comes to the maths, I disagree still: null, {}, NaN are not the same as "none". Zero is the numerical representation of the concept of none. If someone asks how much money you have, $0 and none are identical answers. Null means the lack of a value, {} is an empty set, NaN is "not a number", and all of these are fundamentally different to either zero or none. If somebody have a mathematical sun in words as "if Alice has three apples and Bob has none, how many do they have in total?", you would be able to easily translate that to "3+0=3" because they are fundamentally the same.
As for your answer regarding the feat, I can see both sides, which is why I raised it in the first place. I agree this will be down to a DM ruling. Personally, I think my call would be that it is part of the trigger, hence the damage must be greater than or equal to 1. This is because of both the DMG "damage trigger must be greater than zero" role and because it feels right in plain English. But there definitely isn't a single, unquestionable response.
Honestly, I bet the dumb wording of the feat comes back to fists not being "weapons" by RAW. This whole problem is solved by saying "when you hit a creature with a weapon that deals bludgeoning damage", but then unarmed strikes wouldn't qualify ... and monks seem to be one of the major target audiences for this feat.
So how about we just fix it to say this: "when you hit a creature with a weapon or an unarmed strike that deals bludgeoning damage..."
I think you meant to write“greater than or equal to 1” since “greater than 0” ≠ “greater than 1.” Where do you work as a mathematician? I ask so I know to double check their figures.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
(Regarding whether "none" means "null" or "zero", I think we disagree, but that just comes down to math not projecting 1-to-1 on language. I'd say that if a student gave me an answer to "what is 3 minus 3" and said "none", then that would be wrong, but your example also makes sense. Yay, the inherently inexact nature of language!)
Ok guys, no personal attacks. Keep it about rules.
The topic of whether 0 damage is not damage has been covered (it isn't damage).
Currently the topic of contention is whether an attack that deals bludgeoning damage is an attack the deals bludgeoning damage when it is made or after it deals damage
I'm of the opinion that an attack that deals bludgeoning damage is always so by definition. Urth seems to be of the opinion that it is in a quantum state of uncertainty until after it is measured, afterward it will have always been so.
Yes, you are correct, I made a small mistake in a final summary post of a casual discussion which I'm trying to type on my mobile. It should have been greater than or equal to, I'll correct it now. Thanks 😏
Not so. These feats also work with spell attacks that deal the appropriate types of damage, in this case things like Magic Stone and Arcane Hand / Bigby’s Hand.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
It even easier on mobile because the mobile browser can actually add an underscore (which this site cannot for some bizarre reason) so you can actually create those symbols like this: < >
#lifehacks; #themoreyouknow; #knowingishalfthebattle 👍
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting