D&D (2024) Hazirawn/flaming Weapon+ Pact of the Blade

[Paul Farquhar]

If this is your view then what about the +1 on a +1 Dagger

Let’s try and make this simple. You find a +2 mace. What kind of damage is the +2?

 

[ECMO3]

Let’s try and make this simple. You find a +2 mace. What kind of damage is the +2?

It is EXTRA Bludgeoning damage which by your logic is NOT part of the base weapon damage. A normal mace does not do +2 damage on top of the 1d6 bludgeoning and if the Warlock conjured a mace instead of bonding to this magic mace it would not do the +2.

Assuming the Warlock bonds with this +2 mace, using a strict interpretation of your logic a +2 mace bonded with pact of Blade being used by a Warlock does 1d6 Bludgeoning, Psychic, Radiant or Necrotic (Warlock's Choice) plus 2 Bludgeonig that can't be changed because it is not part of the damage done by a normal mace.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It is EXTRA Bludgeoning damage

How do you tell it’s bludgeoning damage?

by your logic

No, you have completely failed to follow the logic, which is why I’m trying to explain it to you one step at a time.

 

[Zardnaar]

What pact says is normal weapon damage. +1,2,3 and sneak attack count as normal?

 

[ECMO3]

How do you tell it’s bludgeoning damage?

I think it is pretty obvious it is bludgeoning desite wording specific to that, but maybe it isn't. What do you think it is?

Regardless of what type of damage it is, it is clearly EXTRA damage and not part of the normal Mace damage .... just like the acid damage on a Dragontooth Dagger.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I think it is pretty obvious it is bludgeoning desite wording specific to that, but maybe it isn't.

"Obvious" is not an answer. WHY is it obvious? What is the part of the wording that tells you the damage is bludgeoning?

Understand that, and you will understand why that damage is replaced by the warlock ability (and True Strike), as is sneak attack damage, but damage of a specified type is not.

 

[ECMO3]

"Obvious" is not an answer. WHY is it obvious? What is the part of the wording that tells you the damage is bludgeoning?

Ok you are right. What do you think it is?

Understand that, and you will understand why that damage is replaced by the warlock ability (and True Strike), as is sneak attack damage, but damage of a specified type is not.

Yep I understand and that is why the damage can be changed, including the Acid Damage on a Bonded Dragontooth dagger or the fire damage on a bonded Flame Tongue or the Radiant damage on a bonded Sunblade. It is the same regardless, you change the weapon's damage.

Also True Strike has a subtle difference. Pact of Blade changes the damage of the weapon, True Strike changes the damage of the attack. If you make an attack with Truestrike (not with a pact weapon) you can change ALL the damage to Radiant OR the weapon's damage because the wording says the damage dealt by the attack. So if I have Hex up and I am wielding a Flame Tongue and I hit with Truestrike I can deal ALL Radiant, ALL Fire or ALL Slashing. You can not do some fire and some slashing and some necrotic or a mix. RAW the attack is either all Radiant or all "weapon's normal damage type". If you do not consider Fire damage to be part of the normal damage of a Flametongue then that Fire damage must also change to either Slashing or Radiant (your choice).

If you hit with Truestrike with a pact bonded Flame Tongue you can use any of the three above or psychic or necrotic but again if you hit with truestrike RAW all that damage is one type.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Ok you are right. What do you think it is?

"You have a bonus to attack and damage rolls."

Thus, its not "extra" damage, it's an increase in the weapon's normal damage roll. Which, for a mace, is bludgeoning. For sneak attack, it is "extra damage", but it says "The extra damage’s type is the same as the weapon’s type". Which for a mace would be bludgeoning. Ergo, if a spell or ability changes the normal damage of a weapon, then any +X damage is also changed, because it is part of the normal damage, and sneak attack is changed because it always does the same damage as the weapon's type, which has been changed by the spell/ability.

Now, consider the dragontooth dagger. If I sneak attack with it, the sneak attack damage is piecing, not acid, because "piercing" is the damage the weapon does because of it's type. It's the dagger's normal damage. The +1 is also piercing, because this is added to the weapon's normal damage roll.

Unlike sneak attack, the extra damage is specified as being acid, not "the same as the weapon's type". Thus, an effect that changes the weapon's normal damage type doe not affect this extra damage, because it is specified as being acid damage, not normal damage.

Note that if the intent was to affect all damage done by the weapon, then there would be no need to include the word "normal" in the text. It would be redundant.

 

[ECMO3]

"You have a bonus to attack and damage rolls."

Thus, its not "extra" damage, it's an increase in the weapon's normal damage roll. Which, for a mace, is bludgeoning. For sneak attack, it is "extra damage", but it says "The extra damage’s type is the same as the weapon’s type". Which for a mace would be bludgeoning. Ergo, if a spell or ability changes the normal damage of a weapon, then any +X damage is also changed, because it is part of the normal damage, and sneak attack is changed because it always does the same damage as the weapon's type, which has been changed by the spell/ability.

Now, consider the dragontooth dagger. If I sneak attack with it, the sneak attack damage is piecing, not acid, because "piercing" is the damage the weapon does because of it's type. It's the dagger's normal damage. The +1 is also piercing, because this is added to the weapon's normal damage roll.

Unlike sneak attack, the extra damage is specified as being acid, not "the same as the weapon's type". Thus, an effect that changes the weapon's normal damage type doe not affect this extra damage, because it is specified as being acid damage, not normal damage.

Note that if the intent was to affect all damage done by the weapon, then there would be no need to include the word "normal" in the text. It would be redundant.

I did not say the intent was to change all the damage. I said RAW all the damage changes.

The wording on Truestrike is pretty specific: "If the attack deals damage, it can be Radiant damage or the weapon’s normal damage type (your choice)."

So if I hit with an attack using a Dragontooth Dagger with Truestrike then the "attack" deals either radiant or the "weapon's normal type". If Acid is not the "Weapon's normal type" then that "attack" can not deal acid damage at all when I use Truestrike.

My opinion is Acid is a Dragontooth Dagger's "normal damage type" and used with Sneak attack I could do acid or piercing or a mix.

There is also specific vs general at play here. Piercing is the general normal damage type of a dagger, but a Dragontooth Dagger is a specific dagger that deals Acid damage normally, hence it is the "normal damage type" for that specific dagger.

That is my interpretation of RAW and nothing you have said has changed it. There are numerous problems and logical inconsistencies you need to accept not to include all the damage of all types on a magic weapon as the "weapons normal damage".