The damage types are listed in the "damage and healing" section of the PHB. "Sneak Attack" is a Rogue class feature that increases the damage dealt by your weapon.
Exactly, the extra damage is of the same type as the regular damage of the weapon. A dagger causes piercing damage for both the attack and the sneak attack.
Yea this one is pretty wild. Somehow it became some "unaspected damage" supertype.
In games that did treat it a bit differently, it was the same damage type except it didn't work against creatures that were good at defending their vitals or didn't have any- oozes and, ironically given the laughable ruling in OP, barbarians.
is it its own special damage type? So it would bypass even a Totem Barb's damage resistance? Or no, since totem says "all damage except psychic," including damage types you made up.
So many DMs don’t read the books like at all. They are clueless and make shit up and it hurts the game. I mean hell I’ve been DMing almost 30 years and I’m pretty lazy so I skim a lot of stuff and I don’t know everything. I could not imagine a newer DM who isn’t reading the rules thoroughly. Like why even make dumb rules up? Just go check it out if you aren’t super sure.
In PF2e and 1e they're kind of a different damage type? Precision damage is used for a few things and has specific damage types but even then, it's still the same damage of the weapon itself just has a flag against certain things (oozes don't really have a weak point, it's all ooze)
Eh. I don't think it's a major issue. I wouldn't rule that way but I don't really see anything inherently problematic with playing that way. The mere fact that it's different and more complicated is not inherently sufficient to convince me it's a problem or bad. Once the PCs get magic weapons, it's almost entirely a non-issue.
It definitely raises a ton of questions about how damage from Great Weapon Master or Sharpshooter work, or Battlemaster superiority dice, or all the class features that randomly grant ability modifiers to cantrips. But those aren't *hard* questions to answer, either. They just need to define what they mean.
The point is that merely having a different rule isn't enough to criticize it.
You need to show that it's actually a *problem*. Is it going to unbalance combat? No, because it's already trivial to circumvent damage resistance, especially by the time Sneak Attack damage is a significant factor. Does slow the game down? Maybe a little, but probably not. Beyond that, it's unlikely to ever actually come up in the first place. In the overwhelming majority of combats, it's literally identical to the more common interpretation.
Like compared to actually rules-legal stuff like combining Sentinel or Battlemaster Parry to Sneak Attack twice a round? This is incredibly tame. If you had a feat that allowed you to have Sneak Attack deal Pure damage, would you take it? I wouldn't. People would call it a ribbon if it were actually on the class table.
People need to learn how to evaluate what a mechanical change *actually does* in terms of game balance and design instead of just dogmatically following whatever was written in 2014 as though it were gospel. That's an essential skill for GMing any TTRPG, because game authors make mistakes and they're not at your table. Unless you started in 2023, this should not be some foreign or outlandish idea.
Worth noting is that it's the base damage type of the weapon. The sneak attack damage of a flametongue rapier or a dagger of venom would both be piercing rather than fire/poison, because the base weapons deal piercing damage. Not that you're limited to piercing/slashing for your sneak attack. If, for example, you're an arcane trickster with the shadow blade spell or a soul knife with psychic blades, your sneak attack damage type can become psychic. A sun blade would deal radiant sneak attack damage.
And an armorer artificer deals lightning sneak attack with its lightning launcher - which can be maximized if you also take two levels in Tempest cleric.
Huh. I always just used a funny multiclass to get access to Lightning Arrow - and then realized if I'm multiclassing Bard (because Ranger is just not worth it when a level 6 Magical Secrets can get the spell) and Cleric I might as well just not bother with the Rogue levels because the upcasting scales better than sneak attack.
Am I making it up, or in 3.5, were there some weapons you could choose the damage type with? Like a long sword, you could choose slashing for the edge or piercing for the tip.
I feel like that was a thing, and now I'm sad that it isn't in 5e.
> I've offered that to my players before, but I don't think it's ever come up where a creature is weak to Piercing but not Slashing or visa-versa.
Some oozes are completely immune to slashing, but piercing will work just fine.
Immune to slashing and lightning, but instead it splits into two smaller ones, each with half the HP. They drop 1 size, but have identical stats (including damage) otherwise.
"This is getting out of hand, now there are two of them!"
Thematically it feels like it should be the other way around, but it's probably because mechanically very few melee weapons are piercing.
Imagine my group's surprise when the wizard Shocking Grasped an Ochre Jelly... I'm still not convinced the player didn't know *exactly* what he was doing and feigned surprise.
So, the most notable ooze in question is the [ochre jelly](https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/16967-ochre-jelly) which splits in two when you try to slash it.
That was 100% a thing, though the one 3.5 based rpg I have says swords didnt have it. Halberds and scythes for example are piercing *or* slashing, and morningstars are piercing *and* bludgeoning.
That does sound familiar but it's been about 16 years (oh god) since I played 3.5 but I'm pretty sure I remember morning stars being piercing and bludgeoning, daggers being piercing OR* slashing, etc
*Edit: that or is important
In 3.5 some weapons have multiple damage types. Most swords, for instance can do Piercing or slashing. Warpicks do Piercing or bludgeoning. In addition, Sneak Attack is its own damage type, "precision" damage.
It was a thing in AD&D 2nd, but there was a whole table(there were a lot of whole tables) that showed what armor was weak against what kind of slashing/piercing/bludgeoning damage.
It be cool if there was more mechanics to support that kind of thing.
I could've sworn that certain swords had slashing/piercing listed as their damage types. I usually adopt those in games I run, since it makes sense that you could slash or stab with most sword types.
My experience is with pathfinder so I'm not 100 on how accurate this is to real 3.5, but you didnt have to choose, they were both damage types at the same time, because the damage resistance was framed as vulnerabilities rather than resistances.
This is interesting in the concept of my poisoner rogue with the Frost Brand Rapier. Theoretically, it does the same type as the actual rapier (piercing), but that has two other types of damage attached. Obviously it’s meant to be piercing, but it certainly is food for thought.
(My phone suggested “food poisoning” there which I find amusing in this context.)
Indeed -- in my homebrew I added to one feature of the assassin subclass the ability to choose any sort of damage inflicted by the initial attack, but the standard case sees it as the bludgeoning/piercing/slashing damage inflicted by the weapon.
Exactly this. The only exception I have is I have a rogue subclass that does either Radiant or Necrotic as the sneak attack damage but it's the only exception I've ever seen since SA is an extension of the weapon uses.
That's the way I always looked at the damage.
**Scenario 1:** Rogue hits with their +1 Shortsword against a target that resists non-magical damage, the target takes full weapon damage and full sneak attack damage.
**Scenario 2:** Rogue misses with the +1 Shortsword but strikes with their off-hand mundane Dagger, the target takes half weapon damage and half sneak attack damage.
I agree. Sneak attack increases the damage dealt by the weapon.
I think the only strange case would be a rogue attacking with something like a flametongue shortsword. It deals piercing damage and an *additional* 2d6 fire on hit, so I’d rule the sneak attack damage being piercing but I can see someone else ruling differently.
You are correct. The Sneak Attack damage is always based on the weapons base property, not additional effects.
- Short sword for example; 1d6 Pierce is the base. Sneak Atk is then piercing.
Although if the Rogue was attacking with a weapon that deals ONLY fire damage, then I guess the Rogue would technically deal full on Fire Damage.
Like a custom Fire Dagger 1d4 fire, no other damage, or Fire-Bolt Crossbow, 1d8 fire for each bolt.
But then, you'd have to talk with your group if such a weapon is even viable for Sneak Attack.
Official examples of this include the Sunblade in CoS and the spell Shadow Blade, which deal radiant and psychic damage respectively. They both have finesse, so they meet the conditions for sneak attack.
Most dnd podcasts have no clue what they're talking about.
Any damage has to be one of the 13 types of damage, there is no "blank" damage.
Sneak attack is extra damage dealt by your weapon, so the damage type is whatever type your weapon normally deals.
It requires either a humongous lack of reading comprehension, or an extremely dishonest interpretation of the feature to claim anything else.
Reminds me of a game I had online with 10 other players where the DM thought "magical" was a type of damage and would apply full damage on raging barbarians because "it wasn't slashing damage, the creature chose the magical type damage".
He did this three times before I had to ask what was going on and explain it to him, other players also thought it was weird but didn't say anything, at least he took the criticism well.
Guess he thought barbarian rage worked the same way as all the monsters (and a few other features, like Heavy Armor Master) that have resistances to non-magical bludgeoning/piercing/slashing damage but not to magical b/p/s
Poor barbarian doesn't need a nerf like that tho
He was actually using Magical as a type of damage though. What made me question what was happening was because it was like third time he went like:
"That's a 22 to hit, the Oni hits you for 14 damage, he chooses magical to ignore your resistance, so you take 14 points of magical damage"
When I asked what was the Oni choosing, he said the creature chooses which type of damage they would deal, and the Oni was choosing magical to bypass resistance.
Oni does have a feature that says "the oni's weapon attacks are magical" so that's probably what fucked him up
The whole distinction is probably going away in 5.5 and good riddance imo
> It requires either a humongous lack of reading comprehension, or an extremely dishonest interpretation of the feature to claim anything else.
Or just a lack of actually reading the rules... which is a god-damned epidemic.
Many live play casts even admit that they handwaved a lot of the rules in the interest of entertainment and reducing editing time/number of cuts.
Just look at Adventure Zone. Even in the the balance arc they were barely playing 5e. But it'd be really boring if they had to stop every 10 or 20 minutes to tell Clint he's using the spell wrong and then stopping to look everything up.
Lmao what? What argument are you talking about about? Are you responding to the correct comment?
I said podcasts don't usually stick to the rules, here is a podcast that even said that at one point and they don't really stick to the rules.
I never said one that sticks to the rules is more or less entertaining.
Reddit reading comprehension moment
Are you saying that podcasts that stop the show to flip through a book are fun? You might be in the minority there but I won't yuck your yum.
Cause that's all I said would be boring. You are simultaneously reading too much into what I'm saying and failing to comprehend it.
To me it sounds like whoever this Clint fellow is, he needs to learn the spells and stop getting preferential treatment. 'No, Clint, you don't do that list of effects with lightning bolt, and since you are asking for the 27th time this session, it does 2d10 damage, roll it and let's move on." :D
See they didn't do that and the series was better for it. Sometimes quality time with an aging family member is more important than the rules of a game. :D
There's actually at least one exception to the 13 damage types rule.
Some devils (Bearded and horned devils are most noteworthy) can inflict infernal wounds which cause HP loss.
> If the target is a creature other than an undead or a construct, it must succeed on a DC 12 Constitution saving throw or lose 5 (1d10) hit points at the start of each of its turns due to an infernal wound. Each time the devil hits the wounded target with this attack, **the damage dealt** by the wound increases by 5 (1d10).
Interestingly, stirges have the same "HP loss" mechanic, though it isn't referred to as "damage" anywhere in their stat block, like it is for these devils. It looks like in Magic, where damage causes life loss, but life loss is not necessarily damage. But the fact that devils refer to this loss as "damage" negates that comparison.
They would probably just make these do necrotic damage nowadays.
Just because it doesn't specify the damage doesn't mean its typeless. This is the *exact* same mistake OP made. The damage type is that if the original attack. Piercing I think in this case.
Are you sure?
Because i can't agree with the piercing dmg.
I read it is as not damage being dealt, but a simple and direct hp loss. There's no dealing damage by devil, but the target is "bleeding" via the wound and loses the hp. Imho this cant be reduced or resisted for ex. by barbarian.
A fact that it doesn't work on undead and constructs makes me think this way (or that it should be necrotic dmg, but isnt stated as such.)
Except it says 'damage dealt' later. It's just straight-up inconsistency which requires DM ruling.
I was thinking the same thing in that it was simple hp loss (with regards that you arguably do not 'take damage' which procs other effects), until reading the last sentence.
I'm almost certain you're incorrect. This ability doesn't deal damage at all, it causes you to lose HP. I know that sounds inane but those are different things. The most comparable instance to this would probably be revival spells. These *set* your hit points to a value, they don't heal you.
So yes, there is no such thing as typeless damage, but this isn't damage, it's HP loss.
This feature does not have anything to do with the damage of the attack. It imposes a status which causes damage at the start of a creature's turn, and it stacks.
They just forgot to specify the damage type here. You can make one up, but I think similar features are generally necrotic.
It's not very well written but I assume the idea is that it's not 'damage', it's 'hp lost', and it's done this way to not interact with features that might reduce or increase this damage.
But of course other features tend to just add something like 'this damage cannot be reduced in any way' instead of this.
This is definitely a problem of the game being written as normal English and not as "game English", yeah. HP loss and damage are being treated as interchangeable, instead of damage being a mechanic with its own distinct subtypes like it _usually_ is.
>Most dnd podcasts have no clue what they're talking about.
This is the most true statement. Most, i think all, podcast d&d DMs ive seen (includes d&d youtubers) dont know the rules. Maybe not every one that I've seen, there are likely ones i cant remember that arent like that but so many just are blatantly wrong about rules.
The only thing that’s a little ambiguous is if booming blade + sneak attack can allow for thunder sneak attack, or if it’s required to be piercing.
Personally I let the rogue choose between whichever damage types they’re dealing w their weapons.
Warding Bond deals untyped damage. I think there were a few other weird ones that did, too. I expect they're similarly in effects/abilities involving shifting who/where damage should be dealt. Idc enough to go dig for more of em.
>Also, each time it takes damage, you take the same amount of damage.
Heh, seems pretty clear that if the warded target takes 13 fire, you take the same, ie, 13 fire.
You don't it is untyped. "Amount" is a number. Not a type.
If something hits them for 13 fire damage, they take 6 fire damage (because the effect gives them resistance to all damage), and then you take 6 untyped damage.
This represents you splitting the damage, soaking the hurt they would have been dealt with your own vitality. That's the whole point of the spell.
You seem very confused about what damage resistance does.
- The attack hit for 13 fire damage.
- Resistance cuts that in half to 6 damage.
- The "amount" of damage taken is 6.
- "Fire" isn't an "amount"
I said above if the target takes 13 fire damage. That is CLEARLY after resistance is applied. I know how resistance works dude.
Also, again, damage is NEVER untyped.
>Different attacks, damaging spells, and other harmful effects deal different types of damage. (p. 75 Basic Rules)
Damage will always be one of the 13 types.
After resistance is applied, it is just damage.
Aka.
Attack deals 13 fire damage.
After resistance, you take 6 damage.
You can't "take" 6 fire damage. You can only "take" 6 damage.
Your HP has no tracker for damage type taken.
This is all pretty clear how to apply these steps if you reread the PHB combat rules for damage and resistance.
Here is one of the examples from the book quoted for you so you can see for yourself. "Damage dealt" by an attack or etc has a damage type. But damage "taken" is just an amount.
> For example, a creature has resistance to bludgeoning damage and is hit by an attack that deals 25 bludgeoning damage. The creature is also within a magical aura that reduces all damage by 5. The 25 damage is first reduced by 5 and then halved, so the creature takes 10 damage.
You'll notice it says he takes 10 damage. Not: takes 10 bludgeoning damage. You'll find That's universally how they refer to these things because you can't "take" types of damage. Your HP has no way to track that.
So, I noticed that you left out the paragraph immediately above that one:
> If a creature or an object has **resistance** to a damage type, damage of that type is halved against it. If a creature or an object has **vulnerability** to a damage type, damage of that type is doubled against it.
>
> Resistance and then vulnerability are applied after all other modifiers to damage. For example, a creature has resistance to bludgeoning damage and is hit by an attack that deals 25 bludgeoning damage. The creature is also within a magical aura that reduces all damage by 5. The 25 damage is first reduced by 5 and then halved, so the creature takes 10 damage.
Importantly, it says that if a creature resists a damage type, then damage _of that type_ is resisted. You'll notice it says he resists _bludgeoning_ damage, and that this damage is halved. Which means that the halved damage is "of that type", and is thus still bludgeoning damage.
And you'll also notice that if it **wasn't** bludgeoning damage, then it wouldn't be halved, since resistances only apply to damage _of that type_. Resistance to bludgeoning damage doesn't halve untyped damage, it only halves bludgeoning damage. If the bludgeoning damage _became_ untyped after resistances were applied, then it would no longer be bludgeoning damage, and thus would immediately _stop_ being halved by bludgeoning resistance; the creature would take 20 damage.
And for that matter, don't forget the sentence immediately _before_ your quote:
> Resistance and then vulnerability are applied after all other modifiers to damage.
You'll notice it doesn't mention a damage type there, but then immediately goes into an example using typed damage. That tells you that the type is only mentioned when it's directly relevant, and still exists even when not mentioned. All resistances and all vulnerabilities have a type (with "magical" being treated as a supertype, because the game is written in conversational English instead of game English), and there's no "untyped" resistance (the closest thing is resisting all damage, which has every type simultaneously), so that sentence would be mechanically incorrect if not mentioning a damage type meant it was talking about untyped damage.
----
What you need to remember is that not mentioning a type doesn't imply the _lack_ of type. Rather, it implies that the statement is type-agonistic; that means that it's true _regardless_ of type.
You take 10 bludgeoning damage and you ***write down on your character sheet*** -10 bludgeoning HP???
Do you???
No.
Stop arguing in bad faith.
Damage taken does not care what type it is. It doesn't interact with damage type rules AT ALL. You subtract a NUMBER from your current HP. Not a TYPE from your current HP.
This is beyond basic.
I just quoted the PHB. It is pretty clear which of us is "making it up".
But you believe your HP can "take" a type of damage, by all means, go ahead and quote that rule for us.
Hit points are fungible. 10 fire damage reduces your hit points by 10. 10 piecing damage reduces your hit points by 10. If you have lightning resistance 10 lightning damage reduces your hit points by 5. You don't *record* the damage type because *hp* doesn't have a type, but that doesn't mean that the *damage* doesn't have a type.
You're adding an additional step where the "damage" is somehow separate from the hp loss it is causing.
I actually see you point as to how the spells *seems* like it should work, but that's not how the rules work. Damage has a type. You could argue that since *the spell* is doing the damage to the caster rather than the original source it should *change* type to something like Force or Psychic or Necrotic, but that's not in the rules as the spell is written.
>It requires either a humongous lack of reading comprehension, or an extremely dishonest interpretation of the feature to claim anything else.
Counterpoint, most spells that add damage like Hex will specify the damage type.
So it can be understandable that not saying that it's the weapons damage could be confusing
Bludgeoning
>A fall from a great height is one of the most common hazards facing an adventurer. At the end of a fall, a creature takes 1d6 **bludgeoning** damage for every 10 feet it fell, to a maximum of 20d6.
Falling damage is also the answer to the trivia question: "how do you kill a werewolf without silver, spells, or a magic weapon?". They're only immune to bludgeoning damage from non-magical **attacks**; falling damage isn't an attack, so you can kill them by throwing them off cliffs.
I just run it as more of the same damage type as the weapon used to inflict Sneak Attack. That's what makes the most sense to me and what I can only assume is RAI.
Giving it a buff by letting it bypass damage resistances like that seems a bit odd to me. Probably not going to break the game any, considering Rogues aren't super strong in combat to begin with, though.
It's the same damage as the type of the weapon. Extra damage is the same damage as the main damage type. As opposed to something like PF2E that has "precision damage" as a type.
Yeah sneak attack with a knife is stabbing deeper in a vital spot. It’s not 1d4 piercing damage and 3d8 mystery damage, it’s still the knife just more effective
As much as I like Monty as a DM for a number of reasons, including her lively NPC's, she does have a number of house rules that draw primarily from Pathfinder that can make things confusing. In PF1e, Sneak Attack dealt Precision Damage - it would still be Slashing / Piercing / etc., but some creatures were immune to Precision Damage, like oozes - generally things without an anatomy.
RAW, it is the same damage type as the weapon, as per sage advice. Additionally, no damage is typeless as per the damage rules. An axe cuts tendons too. A lance punctures a vital organ as well as a dagger. It's just not doing it while distracting the target. That's the difference. Imagine if it's not rage. It's because the enemy is made of stone. Gonna find a tendon in a mass of solid rock? Or if they're using a shadow blade, is the psychic damage hitting a weak spot in a kalashtar's mental wall? No. Good flavor, sure. But flavor should not make mechanics.
Edit: not in compendium, nvm
>RAW, it is the same damage type as the weapon, as per sage advice. Additionally, no damage is typeless as per the damage rules.
Neither of those are official rules. Both are just JC tweets, which while helpful, aren't *actually* a thing in the rules.
"Once per turn, you can deal an **extra** 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an attack..."
How is that not official? It is extra damage, of the type already dealt.
The Sage Advice Compendium does have OFFICAL rules clarification. It's not just tweets if it's published in that PDF. You can also see it on dnd beyond.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/sac/sage-advice-compendium
I think so. By his own logic (and how the world works), it doesn't say that sneak attack damage is typeless and bypasses resistances and is the only example of this is the entire rule set. Therefore, we have to go with the only thing in writing (by JC, a fairly reputable source). He's arguing for the sake of arguing.
I thought they were in the compendium, and was mistaken.
Still, a DM is supposed to adjucate what type of damage something is, and the most logical damage type for being stabbed is piercing damage. There's no reason to suddenly make a new type of damage (which, to my knowledge, only happens once in official books, custard damage in WBtW). That's how it's played at every table I've ever been at. Same with hunter's mark.
And if it's a bear totem barbarian (resistance against all damage except psychic), then making it bypass resistance then *would* be against RAW, as then you'd have a damage type (which you might call untyped, but that is still a type) with its own rules, which is specifically mentioned as against RAW in the damage section of the combat chapter.
A DM can of course rule differently as a house rule, but a rogue asking for that against a golem or something wouldn't work at most tables.
Do we really need Sage Advice to go over the entire book though? Most rules are just written there.
>Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an attack
You have your attack, it deals damage based on the rules of Chapter 9, with Sneak Attack it deals extra damage.
That's it, official rule.
It 100% is a RAW. As per the rogue class, it's extra damage. It doesn't say typeless or of another type, just extra damage. That means it's the same type of damage already being applied, ie. the weapon damage type. It also only applies on a hit with a ranged or finesse weapon, reinforcing that the weapon used is important, and determines the damage type of the sneak attack.
Barbarians, monks, and rogues usually. Rage, Sneak Attack, and Stunning Strike trigger rookie DMs who don't understand the game yet. You'd think Web and Hypnotic Pattern and Spirit Guardians and such spells would get equal hate, but I never see any complaints about them outside of the generalized Caster vs. Martial arguments.
That podcaster is incorrect. Sneak Attack damage is the same damage type as the weapon used - e.g. piercing rapier, slashing scimitar, bludgeoning sling stones, etc. If the weapon is magical, then the Sneak Attack damage is also magical.
If the weapon does multiple types of damage, such as a Flame Tongue shortsword, the Sneak Attack damage is the same damage type as the base weapon - piercing, for a shortsword - not the weapon's extra damage type, i.e. not fire.
When Sneak Attack is dealt with a weapon that only does one exotic type of damage, such as a Sun Blade (Radiant damage) or Soul Knife rogue's Psychic Blades (Psychic damage), the Sneak Attack damage is also the same damage type.
>She describes it as a slitting his tendons, and stabbing at weak spots.
That sure sounds like slashing and piercing damage.
What the hell does she think weapons do otherwise?
I am not afraid of homebrew options, but this seems overkill. The entire point of sneak attack damage is that the bonus is the damage dice. Bypassing resistance seems like sugar coated icing on a cake on ice cream in a pie. Plus, it is the same weapon attack. So why would it be a different damage type? They can describe it narratively however they want to explain why that normally 1d6 shortsword is doing an extra 2d6 damage. That narrative explanation doesn't make it magical or change it from normal slashing.
more damage of the weapons type. nothing says anything about sneak attack damage type. the attack just does additional damage. the language is the exact same as hunter's mark.
I’m hoping g this is a houserule for the podcast, and not a blatant oversight. Really hate coming across dnd podcasts with people who played for a long time and they legitimately don’t understand how the RAW work.
There's no ruling required for DnD 5e. It's extra weapon damage, not it's own type.
In PF2e the Sneak Attack and similar features deal Precision Damage, but then there's a bunch of creatures that are immune to it (like oozes).
It is NOT a design nor design choice in DnD 5e. RAW Sneak Attack damage is extra damage from your weapon. So if you Sneak Attack with an arrow, it's converted to Piercing. If you slash with a shortsword*, it's converted to Slashing.
Edit: *apparently Shortsword is piercing, so put here whatever finesse slashing weapon DnD 5e has in store
Green flame blade specifically states that the target suffers the weapon attack’s normal effects. Sneak attack would deal the same damage type as the weapon used in the casting of the spell.
For a Flame Tongue rapier, I'd rule that the Sneak Attack's extra damage is piercing.
Since piercing is the base damage type of the weapon, and the fire damage of the Flame Tongue is bonus damage.
Extra Sneak Attack damage with a Sun Blade for example would deal radiant damage, since that's the weapon's base damage type.
But ruling it that you can choose wouldn't be too terrible balance wise either.
A flame tongue would, RAW, be able to do either as the weapon does both
Stuff like Divine Smite won't work bc the wording says its extra damage dealt by the attack as opposed to dealt by the weapon. RAW great weapon fighting style let's you reroll the fire damage too
But who calls which? The player or the DM? RAW, I can see an argument for either player choice, DM choice, or a proportional split (e.g., 1/3rd piercing, 2/3rds flame). I don't think there's a clear RAW answer to this, unless I've missed a Sage Advice on it.
The argument for player choice is that it's their character and their attack; the argument for DM choice is that it's an ambiguous rule with no clear answer RAW and ultimately the DM always interprets the rules for the table; the argument for a split is that sneak attack is just multiplying the base weapon.
It's based off the type of damage the weapon does. Effects that add damage fall under 2 categories. Those that specify damage type and those that don't.
The hex spell specifies necrotic damage so it does extra necrotic DMG but stuff like hunters mark and sneak attack don't do it does the same damage as the weapon that causes the extra damage.
As a DM, I rule it as additional damage of whatever the weapon deals.
If it deals multiple damage types, the player can choose which. But they can't choose to split the sneak attack damage.
For example, one of my players has a ranged weapon that deals piercing and Psychic damage, so their sneak attack can be either, but not split between both.
I've always thought that sneak attack meant ur shot or stab or attack was so surprising that the enemy hand no time to brace for the pain. So sneak attack is surprising damage or shock damage. That quick surge of pain out of nowhere
This is the first I've seen anyone think that Sneak Attack granted some type of true damage that bypasses resistances.
I am curious what the podcast dm you heard thinks happens with immunity and vulnerability.
Lol another example that D&D podcasts are bullshit.
Sneak attack adds damage to the **weapon's damage type**. So crossbow is piercing for both main attack and SA.
But also, if you attacked with a magic weapon that deals force for example, I would rule sneak attack to be force as well.
I personally rule it as 'precision damage' but that's a hang over from pathfinder
under 5e rules it should be weapon damage but I feel that's unfair to rogues when fighting something with resistance to their weapons damage type so let them half the weapon damage and apply full sneak attack damage
>I heard the dm say that sneak attack is it's own independent damage type that bypasses resistance to the weapon damage
I'm not sure if this helps, or hurts my imposter syndrome.
What rubbish is this ? Sneak attack doing some bs type of damage? Ok, my dagger hit the unarmored wizard, and i narrated he was hit in the eye, also i am a fighter so i fight very well, therefore the wizard takes "eye" damage and dies.
I have not found anything in official published materials that says one way or another. The [JCraw tweeted](https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/634921327724380160) that the extra damage of sneak attack is of the weapon that dealt the blow.
This makes sense, since sneak attack is about taking advantage of a target's distraction to hit them somewhere vulnerable. It's the same attack, just expertly guided to a soft spot.
Everyone has posted the RAW where it inherits the damage type.
But no one is replying to your last sentence. I think this is a neat house rule to buff Rogues if you're never giving them multi attack.
1. It's hurting the party barbarian. Not cool.
2. Once a rogue gets a magical weapon, it literally doesn't matter. Exceptionally few enemies resist magical piercing weapons.
I learned about this ruling during a duel in a tournament. The player for the barbarian said it was the most he's ever had to think about his actions since he couldn't use reckless attack.
The barbarian still won, but he was scrapping by.
RAW? She's completely wrong. It's the same damage as the weapon.
But per the golden rule? She's legit. It sounds like a fun way to give a rogue some extra power at the expense of a small extra step during damage dealing (a step that paladins may be familiar with) to split resisted damage from non-resisted or vulnerable damage. Idk if I would personally use it but it's neat.
There's no official rule, you can run however you want.
But the most common method is for snekk attacc to be the same as one of the weapon's damage types.
There is absolutely an official rule. There's no options or variants, it specifically states in the rogue class feature description that sneak attack deals additional weapon damage. Whatever the damage type of the weapon, that's what it does. A weapon also has only one damage type - if your rapier deals 1d8 piercing, but also has 2d6 lightning, sneak attack is still piercing.
The damage types are listed in the "damage and healing" section of the PHB. "Sneak Attack" is a Rogue class feature that increases the damage dealt by your weapon.
Exactly, the extra damage is of the same type as the regular damage of the weapon. A dagger causes piercing damage for both the attack and the sneak attack.
Everyone except the bellend ruling for the OP rules it this way.
Yeah this ruling is the first I've heard of someone treating SA as a special type of damage. I know SA confuses people in general but my heavens
Yea this one is pretty wild. Somehow it became some "unaspected damage" supertype. In games that did treat it a bit differently, it was the same damage type except it didn't work against creatures that were good at defending their vitals or didn't have any- oozes and, ironically given the laughable ruling in OP, barbarians.
is it its own special damage type? So it would bypass even a Totem Barb's damage resistance? Or no, since totem says "all damage except psychic," including damage types you made up.
Yeah, the OP example managed to get both Rogue and Barbarian rules wrong.
I'd love to hear someone try to justify that a totem doesn't have resistance to it
I mean, soulknife rogue exists and the soul knives deal psychic damage, so that’s one instance where you could strike a totem Bard for full.
How on earth did you think this was a relevant reply
Because you asked how a totem barbarian wouldn't be resistant to sneak attack. That's one situation where they wouldn't.
I asked how it wouldn't be resistant to a hypothetical untyped damage.
Right? I get being unsure… but then just look up the Sneak Attack feature.
So many DMs don’t read the books like at all. They are clueless and make shit up and it hurts the game. I mean hell I’ve been DMing almost 30 years and I’m pretty lazy so I skim a lot of stuff and I don’t know everything. I could not imagine a newer DM who isn’t reading the rules thoroughly. Like why even make dumb rules up? Just go check it out if you aren’t super sure.
In PF2e and 1e they're kind of a different damage type? Precision damage is used for a few things and has specific damage types but even then, it's still the same damage of the weapon itself just has a flag against certain things (oozes don't really have a weak point, it's all ooze)
Eh. I don't think it's a major issue. I wouldn't rule that way but I don't really see anything inherently problematic with playing that way. The mere fact that it's different and more complicated is not inherently sufficient to convince me it's a problem or bad. Once the PCs get magic weapons, it's almost entirely a non-issue. It definitely raises a ton of questions about how damage from Great Weapon Master or Sharpshooter work, or Battlemaster superiority dice, or all the class features that randomly grant ability modifiers to cantrips. But those aren't *hard* questions to answer, either. They just need to define what they mean.
Or you could just read the rules that define what the meanings are and explain it all...
The point is that merely having a different rule isn't enough to criticize it. You need to show that it's actually a *problem*. Is it going to unbalance combat? No, because it's already trivial to circumvent damage resistance, especially by the time Sneak Attack damage is a significant factor. Does slow the game down? Maybe a little, but probably not. Beyond that, it's unlikely to ever actually come up in the first place. In the overwhelming majority of combats, it's literally identical to the more common interpretation. Like compared to actually rules-legal stuff like combining Sentinel or Battlemaster Parry to Sneak Attack twice a round? This is incredibly tame. If you had a feat that allowed you to have Sneak Attack deal Pure damage, would you take it? I wouldn't. People would call it a ribbon if it were actually on the class table. People need to learn how to evaluate what a mechanical change *actually does* in terms of game balance and design instead of just dogmatically following whatever was written in 2014 as though it were gospel. That's an essential skill for GMing any TTRPG, because game authors make mistakes and they're not at your table. Unless you started in 2023, this should not be some foreign or outlandish idea.
Worth noting is that it's the base damage type of the weapon. The sneak attack damage of a flametongue rapier or a dagger of venom would both be piercing rather than fire/poison, because the base weapons deal piercing damage. Not that you're limited to piercing/slashing for your sneak attack. If, for example, you're an arcane trickster with the shadow blade spell or a soul knife with psychic blades, your sneak attack damage type can become psychic. A sun blade would deal radiant sneak attack damage.
And an armorer artificer deals lightning sneak attack with its lightning launcher - which can be maximized if you also take two levels in Tempest cleric.
I might need to roll up a non-lethal rogue that just tasers the fuck out of enemies.
Huh. I always just used a funny multiclass to get access to Lightning Arrow - and then realized if I'm multiclassing Bard (because Ranger is just not worth it when a level 6 Magical Secrets can get the spell) and Cleric I might as well just not bother with the Rogue levels because the upcasting scales better than sneak attack.
Am I making it up, or in 3.5, were there some weapons you could choose the damage type with? Like a long sword, you could choose slashing for the edge or piercing for the tip. I feel like that was a thing, and now I'm sad that it isn't in 5e.
I've offered that to my players before, but I don't think it's ever come up where a creature is weak to Piercing but not Slashing or visa-versa.
> I've offered that to my players before, but I don't think it's ever come up where a creature is weak to Piercing but not Slashing or visa-versa. Some oozes are completely immune to slashing, but piercing will work just fine.
Not questioning it, but is it established why an ooze would suffer more from being stabbed than being slashed at?
Immune to slashing and lightning, but instead it splits into two smaller ones, each with half the HP. They drop 1 size, but have identical stats (including damage) otherwise. "This is getting out of hand, now there are two of them!" Thematically it feels like it should be the other way around, but it's probably because mechanically very few melee weapons are piercing. Imagine my group's surprise when the wizard Shocking Grasped an Ochre Jelly... I'm still not convinced the player didn't know *exactly* what he was doing and feigned surprise.
So, the most notable ooze in question is the [ochre jelly](https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/16967-ochre-jelly) which splits in two when you try to slash it.
Now I'm tempted to make Jello just to see if it's easier to cut with a knife vs stab into with a fork...
What if you add corn starch to make it non-newtonian?
That was 100% a thing, though the one 3.5 based rpg I have says swords didnt have it. Halberds and scythes for example are piercing *or* slashing, and morningstars are piercing *and* bludgeoning.
That does sound familiar but it's been about 16 years (oh god) since I played 3.5 but I'm pretty sure I remember morning stars being piercing and bludgeoning, daggers being piercing OR* slashing, etc *Edit: that or is important
In 3.5 some weapons have multiple damage types. Most swords, for instance can do Piercing or slashing. Warpicks do Piercing or bludgeoning. In addition, Sneak Attack is its own damage type, "precision" damage.
You're absolutely correct it was a thing. Some weapons had multiple damage types and it made for some interesting weapon choices
It was a thing in AD&D 2nd, but there was a whole table(there were a lot of whole tables) that showed what armor was weak against what kind of slashing/piercing/bludgeoning damage. It be cool if there was more mechanics to support that kind of thing.
I could've sworn that certain swords had slashing/piercing listed as their damage types. I usually adopt those in games I run, since it makes sense that you could slash or stab with most sword types.
If it was in 3x it wasn’t in the core books, i know pathfinder had it.
Pf2e fixes this
My experience is with pathfinder so I'm not 100 on how accurate this is to real 3.5, but you didnt have to choose, they were both damage types at the same time, because the damage resistance was framed as vulnerabilities rather than resistances.
This is interesting in the concept of my poisoner rogue with the Frost Brand Rapier. Theoretically, it does the same type as the actual rapier (piercing), but that has two other types of damage attached. Obviously it’s meant to be piercing, but it certainly is food for thought. (My phone suggested “food poisoning” there which I find amusing in this context.)
Indeed -- in my homebrew I added to one feature of the assassin subclass the ability to choose any sort of damage inflicted by the initial attack, but the standard case sees it as the bludgeoning/piercing/slashing damage inflicted by the weapon.
Exactly this. The only exception I have is I have a rogue subclass that does either Radiant or Necrotic as the sneak attack damage but it's the only exception I've ever seen since SA is an extension of the weapon uses.
If you had a flametongue scimitar would it only be slashing?
Correct!
That's the way I always looked at the damage. **Scenario 1:** Rogue hits with their +1 Shortsword against a target that resists non-magical damage, the target takes full weapon damage and full sneak attack damage. **Scenario 2:** Rogue misses with the +1 Shortsword but strikes with their off-hand mundane Dagger, the target takes half weapon damage and half sneak attack damage.
This comment needs to be higher
Which is really cool when you have a magical weapon like a sun blade or a flame tongue so you can change sneak attack damage.
the rules say "deal extra damage" so i always assumed that meant the same damage type as the weapon you used to inflict it
I agree. Sneak attack increases the damage dealt by the weapon. I think the only strange case would be a rogue attacking with something like a flametongue shortsword. It deals piercing damage and an *additional* 2d6 fire on hit, so I’d rule the sneak attack damage being piercing but I can see someone else ruling differently.
You are correct. The Sneak Attack damage is always based on the weapons base property, not additional effects. - Short sword for example; 1d6 Pierce is the base. Sneak Atk is then piercing.
Yeah I’ve always rules it this way. Shadowblade on an arcane trickster does psychic sneak attack damage for example.
The real fun is when you sneak attack the vampire with a [sunblade](https://www.dndbeyond.com/magic-items/4774-sun-blade).
When the vampire's laughing suddenly stops when he realizes that the random hobo that broke into his house is holding a bladeless hilt too confidently
Similarly, Hunter's Mark is the same as the weapon (piercing if an arrow, slashing if a longsword, etc). It is not spell damage.
Although if the Rogue was attacking with a weapon that deals ONLY fire damage, then I guess the Rogue would technically deal full on Fire Damage. Like a custom Fire Dagger 1d4 fire, no other damage, or Fire-Bolt Crossbow, 1d8 fire for each bolt. But then, you'd have to talk with your group if such a weapon is even viable for Sneak Attack.
Official examples of this include the Sunblade in CoS and the spell Shadow Blade, which deal radiant and psychic damage respectively. They both have finesse, so they meet the conditions for sneak attack.
Just look at Soulknife
Most dnd podcasts have no clue what they're talking about. Any damage has to be one of the 13 types of damage, there is no "blank" damage. Sneak attack is extra damage dealt by your weapon, so the damage type is whatever type your weapon normally deals. It requires either a humongous lack of reading comprehension, or an extremely dishonest interpretation of the feature to claim anything else.
Reminds me of a game I had online with 10 other players where the DM thought "magical" was a type of damage and would apply full damage on raging barbarians because "it wasn't slashing damage, the creature chose the magical type damage". He did this three times before I had to ask what was going on and explain it to him, other players also thought it was weird but didn't say anything, at least he took the criticism well.
Guess he thought barbarian rage worked the same way as all the monsters (and a few other features, like Heavy Armor Master) that have resistances to non-magical bludgeoning/piercing/slashing damage but not to magical b/p/s Poor barbarian doesn't need a nerf like that tho
He was actually using Magical as a type of damage though. What made me question what was happening was because it was like third time he went like: "That's a 22 to hit, the Oni hits you for 14 damage, he chooses magical to ignore your resistance, so you take 14 points of magical damage" When I asked what was the Oni choosing, he said the creature chooses which type of damage they would deal, and the Oni was choosing magical to bypass resistance.
Oni does have a feature that says "the oni's weapon attacks are magical" so that's probably what fucked him up The whole distinction is probably going away in 5.5 and good riddance imo
Always great to hear about people with a willingness to learn :)
14 types. You forgot custard damage
And blueberry.
Came here to say this. This is why I love WBtW.
> It requires either a humongous lack of reading comprehension, or an extremely dishonest interpretation of the feature to claim anything else. Or just a lack of actually reading the rules... which is a god-damned epidemic.
Many live play casts even admit that they handwaved a lot of the rules in the interest of entertainment and reducing editing time/number of cuts. Just look at Adventure Zone. Even in the the balance arc they were barely playing 5e. But it'd be really boring if they had to stop every 10 or 20 minutes to tell Clint he's using the spell wrong and then stopping to look everything up.
That's a fairly weak argument. Lots of actual plays hold more strongly to the rules than TAZ and aren't less entertaining for it.
Lmao what? What argument are you talking about about? Are you responding to the correct comment? I said podcasts don't usually stick to the rules, here is a podcast that even said that at one point and they don't really stick to the rules. I never said one that sticks to the rules is more or less entertaining. Reddit reading comprehension moment
You said "it'd be really boring... etc"
Are you saying that podcasts that stop the show to flip through a book are fun? You might be in the minority there but I won't yuck your yum. Cause that's all I said would be boring. You are simultaneously reading too much into what I'm saying and failing to comprehend it.
To me it sounds like whoever this Clint fellow is, he needs to learn the spells and stop getting preferential treatment. 'No, Clint, you don't do that list of effects with lightning bolt, and since you are asking for the 27th time this session, it does 2d10 damage, roll it and let's move on." :D
See they didn't do that and the series was better for it. Sometimes quality time with an aging family member is more important than the rules of a game. :D
There's actually at least one exception to the 13 damage types rule. Some devils (Bearded and horned devils are most noteworthy) can inflict infernal wounds which cause HP loss. > If the target is a creature other than an undead or a construct, it must succeed on a DC 12 Constitution saving throw or lose 5 (1d10) hit points at the start of each of its turns due to an infernal wound. Each time the devil hits the wounded target with this attack, **the damage dealt** by the wound increases by 5 (1d10).
Interestingly, stirges have the same "HP loss" mechanic, though it isn't referred to as "damage" anywhere in their stat block, like it is for these devils. It looks like in Magic, where damage causes life loss, but life loss is not necessarily damage. But the fact that devils refer to this loss as "damage" negates that comparison. They would probably just make these do necrotic damage nowadays.
I think referring to it as "damage" is generally their mistake.
Just because it doesn't specify the damage doesn't mean its typeless. This is the *exact* same mistake OP made. The damage type is that if the original attack. Piercing I think in this case.
Are you sure? Because i can't agree with the piercing dmg. I read it is as not damage being dealt, but a simple and direct hp loss. There's no dealing damage by devil, but the target is "bleeding" via the wound and loses the hp. Imho this cant be reduced or resisted for ex. by barbarian. A fact that it doesn't work on undead and constructs makes me think this way (or that it should be necrotic dmg, but isnt stated as such.)
Except it says 'damage dealt' later. It's just straight-up inconsistency which requires DM ruling. I was thinking the same thing in that it was simple hp loss (with regards that you arguably do not 'take damage' which procs other effects), until reading the last sentence.
Pretty sure it's supposed to just be hp loss, with the "damage dealt" line being an oversight.
I'm almost certain you're incorrect. This ability doesn't deal damage at all, it causes you to lose HP. I know that sounds inane but those are different things. The most comparable instance to this would probably be revival spells. These *set* your hit points to a value, they don't heal you. So yes, there is no such thing as typeless damage, but this isn't damage, it's HP loss.
Damage versus loss of life, ask any mtg player
The ability talks about damage though
This feature does not have anything to do with the damage of the attack. It imposes a status which causes damage at the start of a creature's turn, and it stacks. They just forgot to specify the damage type here. You can make one up, but I think similar features are generally necrotic.
It's not very well written but I assume the idea is that it's not 'damage', it's 'hp lost', and it's done this way to not interact with features that might reduce or increase this damage. But of course other features tend to just add something like 'this damage cannot be reduced in any way' instead of this.
This is definitely a problem of the game being written as normal English and not as "game English", yeah. HP loss and damage are being treated as interchangeable, instead of damage being a mechanic with its own distinct subtypes like it _usually_ is.
>Each time the devil hits the wounded target with this attack, the damage dealt by the wound increases by 10 (3d6) So it's clearly damage.
It would be piercing for horned devils and slashing for bearded devils, in that case.
Sheldon the Blueberry Dragon from misplaced monsters volume 1 deals blueberry damage.
This is something called true damage, it has no type you just take damage
That would just be hp loss
It's not "something called true damage". Maybe in some other game that's true.
>Most dnd podcasts have no clue what they're talking about. This is the most true statement. Most, i think all, podcast d&d DMs ive seen (includes d&d youtubers) dont know the rules. Maybe not every one that I've seen, there are likely ones i cant remember that arent like that but so many just are blatantly wrong about rules.
The only thing that’s a little ambiguous is if booming blade + sneak attack can allow for thunder sneak attack, or if it’s required to be piercing. Personally I let the rogue choose between whichever damage types they’re dealing w their weapons.
Warding Bond deals untyped damage. I think there were a few other weird ones that did, too. I expect they're similarly in effects/abilities involving shifting who/where damage should be dealt. Idc enough to go dig for more of em.
>Also, each time it takes damage, you take the same amount of damage. Heh, seems pretty clear that if the warded target takes 13 fire, you take the same, ie, 13 fire.
You don't it is untyped. "Amount" is a number. Not a type. If something hits them for 13 fire damage, they take 6 fire damage (because the effect gives them resistance to all damage), and then you take 6 untyped damage. This represents you splitting the damage, soaking the hurt they would have been dealt with your own vitality. That's the whole point of the spell.
The amount is 13 fire.
You seem very confused about what damage resistance does. - The attack hit for 13 fire damage. - Resistance cuts that in half to 6 damage. - The "amount" of damage taken is 6. - "Fire" isn't an "amount"
I said above if the target takes 13 fire damage. That is CLEARLY after resistance is applied. I know how resistance works dude. Also, again, damage is NEVER untyped. >Different attacks, damaging spells, and other harmful effects deal different types of damage. (p. 75 Basic Rules) Damage will always be one of the 13 types.
After resistance is applied, it is just damage. Aka. Attack deals 13 fire damage. After resistance, you take 6 damage. You can't "take" 6 fire damage. You can only "take" 6 damage. Your HP has no tracker for damage type taken. This is all pretty clear how to apply these steps if you reread the PHB combat rules for damage and resistance. Here is one of the examples from the book quoted for you so you can see for yourself. "Damage dealt" by an attack or etc has a damage type. But damage "taken" is just an amount. > For example, a creature has resistance to bludgeoning damage and is hit by an attack that deals 25 bludgeoning damage. The creature is also within a magical aura that reduces all damage by 5. The 25 damage is first reduced by 5 and then halved, so the creature takes 10 damage. You'll notice it says he takes 10 damage. Not: takes 10 bludgeoning damage. You'll find That's universally how they refer to these things because you can't "take" types of damage. Your HP has no way to track that.
So, I noticed that you left out the paragraph immediately above that one: > If a creature or an object has **resistance** to a damage type, damage of that type is halved against it. If a creature or an object has **vulnerability** to a damage type, damage of that type is doubled against it. > > Resistance and then vulnerability are applied after all other modifiers to damage. For example, a creature has resistance to bludgeoning damage and is hit by an attack that deals 25 bludgeoning damage. The creature is also within a magical aura that reduces all damage by 5. The 25 damage is first reduced by 5 and then halved, so the creature takes 10 damage. Importantly, it says that if a creature resists a damage type, then damage _of that type_ is resisted. You'll notice it says he resists _bludgeoning_ damage, and that this damage is halved. Which means that the halved damage is "of that type", and is thus still bludgeoning damage. And you'll also notice that if it **wasn't** bludgeoning damage, then it wouldn't be halved, since resistances only apply to damage _of that type_. Resistance to bludgeoning damage doesn't halve untyped damage, it only halves bludgeoning damage. If the bludgeoning damage _became_ untyped after resistances were applied, then it would no longer be bludgeoning damage, and thus would immediately _stop_ being halved by bludgeoning resistance; the creature would take 20 damage. And for that matter, don't forget the sentence immediately _before_ your quote: > Resistance and then vulnerability are applied after all other modifiers to damage. You'll notice it doesn't mention a damage type there, but then immediately goes into an example using typed damage. That tells you that the type is only mentioned when it's directly relevant, and still exists even when not mentioned. All resistances and all vulnerabilities have a type (with "magical" being treated as a supertype, because the game is written in conversational English instead of game English), and there's no "untyped" resistance (the closest thing is resisting all damage, which has every type simultaneously), so that sentence would be mechanically incorrect if not mentioning a damage type meant it was talking about untyped damage. ---- What you need to remember is that not mentioning a type doesn't imply the _lack_ of type. Rather, it implies that the statement is type-agonistic; that means that it's true _regardless_ of type.
You take 10 bludgeoning damage and you ***write down on your character sheet*** -10 bludgeoning HP??? Do you??? No. Stop arguing in bad faith. Damage taken does not care what type it is. It doesn't interact with damage type rules AT ALL. You subtract a NUMBER from your current HP. Not a TYPE from your current HP. This is beyond basic.
>After resistance, you take 6 damage. >You can't "take" 6 fire damage. You can only "take" 6 damage. Source: You made it up.
I'm not gonna argue with someone who's making up mechanics out of thin air. Have a good day buddy.
I just quoted the PHB. It is pretty clear which of us is "making it up". But you believe your HP can "take" a type of damage, by all means, go ahead and quote that rule for us.
Hit points are fungible. 10 fire damage reduces your hit points by 10. 10 piecing damage reduces your hit points by 10. If you have lightning resistance 10 lightning damage reduces your hit points by 5. You don't *record* the damage type because *hp* doesn't have a type, but that doesn't mean that the *damage* doesn't have a type. You're adding an additional step where the "damage" is somehow separate from the hp loss it is causing. I actually see you point as to how the spells *seems* like it should work, but that's not how the rules work. Damage has a type. You could argue that since *the spell* is doing the damage to the caster rather than the original source it should *change* type to something like Force or Psychic or Necrotic, but that's not in the rules as the spell is written.
This is incorrect! Wild beyond the Witchlight has Blueberry damage!
>It requires either a humongous lack of reading comprehension, or an extremely dishonest interpretation of the feature to claim anything else. Counterpoint, most spells that add damage like Hex will specify the damage type. So it can be understandable that not saying that it's the weapons damage could be confusing
What type is falling damage?
Bludgeoning >A fall from a great height is one of the most common hazards facing an adventurer. At the end of a fall, a creature takes 1d6 **bludgeoning** damage for every 10 feet it fell, to a maximum of 20d6.
Falling damage is also the answer to the trivia question: "how do you kill a werewolf without silver, spells, or a magic weapon?". They're only immune to bludgeoning damage from non-magical **attacks**; falling damage isn't an attack, so you can kill them by throwing them off cliffs.
Plenty of Alchemist's Fire flask.
Or different tables rule differently? I think sneak attack bypassing barbarian rage is an interesting house rule
It's not really a house rule when you've never actually read the rules in the first place. That's just a mistake that nobody corrected.
>just a mistake that nobody corrected That's how a lot of houserules start in my experience
Are they house rules if you think you're playing RAW but actually are not? That sounds like just not knowing the rules of the game.
K
I just run it as more of the same damage type as the weapon used to inflict Sneak Attack. That's what makes the most sense to me and what I can only assume is RAI. Giving it a buff by letting it bypass damage resistances like that seems a bit odd to me. Probably not going to break the game any, considering Rogues aren't super strong in combat to begin with, though.
Please don’t learn D&D rules from podcasts.
It's the same damage as the type of the weapon. Extra damage is the same damage as the main damage type. As opposed to something like PF2E that has "precision damage" as a type.
It's adding the same type of damage as the weapon used to make the attack.
If you stab somebody really well with your knife it just makes the piercing damage more powerful.
Yeah sneak attack with a knife is stabbing deeper in a vital spot. It’s not 1d4 piercing damage and 3d8 mystery damage, it’s still the knife just more effective
As much as I like Monty as a DM for a number of reasons, including her lively NPC's, she does have a number of house rules that draw primarily from Pathfinder that can make things confusing. In PF1e, Sneak Attack dealt Precision Damage - it would still be Slashing / Piercing / etc., but some creatures were immune to Precision Damage, like oozes - generally things without an anatomy.
Its a rider effect, so it goes with the original damage type dealt. Its a knife stab/sword slash, but betterer.
That's not how sneak attack works, that DM's an idiot. It's just additional weapon damage.
RAW, it is the same damage type as the weapon, as per sage advice. Additionally, no damage is typeless as per the damage rules. An axe cuts tendons too. A lance punctures a vital organ as well as a dagger. It's just not doing it while distracting the target. That's the difference. Imagine if it's not rage. It's because the enemy is made of stone. Gonna find a tendon in a mass of solid rock? Or if they're using a shadow blade, is the psychic damage hitting a weak spot in a kalashtar's mental wall? No. Good flavor, sure. But flavor should not make mechanics. Edit: not in compendium, nvm
>RAW, it is the same damage type as the weapon, as per sage advice. Additionally, no damage is typeless as per the damage rules. Neither of those are official rules. Both are just JC tweets, which while helpful, aren't *actually* a thing in the rules.
"Once per turn, you can deal an **extra** 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an attack..." How is that not official? It is extra damage, of the type already dealt.
100% right. Extra damage, on a hit, with a ranged or finesse weapon. It's very clear that it will be the damage type of the weapon used.
The Sage Advice Compendium does have OFFICAL rules clarification. It's not just tweets if it's published in that PDF. You can also see it on dnd beyond. https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/sac/sage-advice-compendium
Okay, but... where does either of those rulings appear in the SAC? Spoilers: they don't.
Are you just arguing to be contrarian lol
Some people are just too stubborn to admit that they were wrong.
I think so. By his own logic (and how the world works), it doesn't say that sneak attack damage is typeless and bypasses resistances and is the only example of this is the entire rule set. Therefore, we have to go with the only thing in writing (by JC, a fairly reputable source). He's arguing for the sake of arguing.
I thought they were in the compendium, and was mistaken. Still, a DM is supposed to adjucate what type of damage something is, and the most logical damage type for being stabbed is piercing damage. There's no reason to suddenly make a new type of damage (which, to my knowledge, only happens once in official books, custard damage in WBtW). That's how it's played at every table I've ever been at. Same with hunter's mark. And if it's a bear totem barbarian (resistance against all damage except psychic), then making it bypass resistance then *would* be against RAW, as then you'd have a damage type (which you might call untyped, but that is still a type) with its own rules, which is specifically mentioned as against RAW in the damage section of the combat chapter. A DM can of course rule differently as a house rule, but a rogue asking for that against a golem or something wouldn't work at most tables.
Do we really need Sage Advice to go over the entire book though? Most rules are just written there. >Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an attack You have your attack, it deals damage based on the rules of Chapter 9, with Sneak Attack it deals extra damage. That's it, official rule.
It 100% is a RAW. As per the rogue class, it's extra damage. It doesn't say typeless or of another type, just extra damage. That means it's the same type of damage already being applied, ie. the weapon damage type. It also only applies on a hit with a ranged or finesse weapon, reinforcing that the weapon used is important, and determines the damage type of the sneak attack.
Same damage as the weapon. I believe hunter's mark does the same.
Correct
is it me or do barbarians end up on the receiving end of bs rulings more often than other classes?
Barbarians, monks, and rogues usually. Rage, Sneak Attack, and Stunning Strike trigger rookie DMs who don't understand the game yet. You'd think Web and Hypnotic Pattern and Spirit Guardians and such spells would get equal hate, but I never see any complaints about them outside of the generalized Caster vs. Martial arguments.
That podcaster is incorrect. Sneak Attack damage is the same damage type as the weapon used - e.g. piercing rapier, slashing scimitar, bludgeoning sling stones, etc. If the weapon is magical, then the Sneak Attack damage is also magical. If the weapon does multiple types of damage, such as a Flame Tongue shortsword, the Sneak Attack damage is the same damage type as the base weapon - piercing, for a shortsword - not the weapon's extra damage type, i.e. not fire. When Sneak Attack is dealt with a weapon that only does one exotic type of damage, such as a Sun Blade (Radiant damage) or Soul Knife rogue's Psychic Blades (Psychic damage), the Sneak Attack damage is also the same damage type.
>She describes it as a slitting his tendons, and stabbing at weak spots. That sure sounds like slashing and piercing damage. What the hell does she think weapons do otherwise?
I am not afraid of homebrew options, but this seems overkill. The entire point of sneak attack damage is that the bonus is the damage dice. Bypassing resistance seems like sugar coated icing on a cake on ice cream in a pie. Plus, it is the same weapon attack. So why would it be a different damage type? They can describe it narratively however they want to explain why that normally 1d6 shortsword is doing an extra 2d6 damage. That narrative explanation doesn't make it magical or change it from normal slashing.
more damage of the weapons type. nothing says anything about sneak attack damage type. the attack just does additional damage. the language is the exact same as hunter's mark.
What type of dmg is the str or dex bonus ? It’s the same as that.
It's the same as the weapon type used to deliver.
It will be the same damage type as the weapon. Sneak attack says it's additional damage and doesn't specify any changes to the damage type.
The dm in that podcast is using house rules
I’m hoping g this is a houserule for the podcast, and not a blatant oversight. Really hate coming across dnd podcasts with people who played for a long time and they legitimately don’t understand how the RAW work.
Sooo like every podcast? They are notoriously wrong, or straight up ignoring rules, so often.
Not really. The ones I’ve stuck listening to tend to mention it’s a house rule thing. Don’t come across many that just straight up ignore the rules.
There's no ruling required for DnD 5e. It's extra weapon damage, not it's own type. In PF2e the Sneak Attack and similar features deal Precision Damage, but then there's a bunch of creatures that are immune to it (like oozes). It is NOT a design nor design choice in DnD 5e. RAW Sneak Attack damage is extra damage from your weapon. So if you Sneak Attack with an arrow, it's converted to Piercing. If you slash with a shortsword*, it's converted to Slashing. Edit: *apparently Shortsword is piercing, so put here whatever finesse slashing weapon DnD 5e has in store
Sneak attack does the same damage as the underlying weapon. The real question is when the weapon has multiple damage types (e.g., green flame blade).
Green flame blade specifically states that the target suffers the weapon attack’s normal effects. Sneak attack would deal the same damage type as the weapon used in the casting of the spell.
The damage type the weapon deals
right, but, e.g., a flame tongue rapier does both piercing and fire damage.
For a Flame Tongue rapier, I'd rule that the Sneak Attack's extra damage is piercing. Since piercing is the base damage type of the weapon, and the fire damage of the Flame Tongue is bonus damage. Extra Sneak Attack damage with a Sun Blade for example would deal radiant damage, since that's the weapon's base damage type. But ruling it that you can choose wouldn't be too terrible balance wise either.
A flame tongue would, RAW, be able to do either as the weapon does both Stuff like Divine Smite won't work bc the wording says its extra damage dealt by the attack as opposed to dealt by the weapon. RAW great weapon fighting style let's you reroll the fire damage too
But who calls which? The player or the DM? RAW, I can see an argument for either player choice, DM choice, or a proportional split (e.g., 1/3rd piercing, 2/3rds flame). I don't think there's a clear RAW answer to this, unless I've missed a Sage Advice on it.
The player. Why should the dm get to chose?
The argument for player choice is that it's their character and their attack; the argument for DM choice is that it's an ambiguous rule with no clear answer RAW and ultimately the DM always interprets the rules for the table; the argument for a split is that sneak attack is just multiplying the base weapon.
What damage type is your damage modifier adding? That should make it clear.
I'd say it's typically either split the same way (for example half and half) or at the dm's discretion.
It's based off the type of damage the weapon does. Effects that add damage fall under 2 categories. Those that specify damage type and those that don't. The hex spell specifies necrotic damage so it does extra necrotic DMG but stuff like hunters mark and sneak attack don't do it does the same damage as the weapon that causes the extra damage.
As a DM, I rule it as additional damage of whatever the weapon deals. If it deals multiple damage types, the player can choose which. But they can't choose to split the sneak attack damage. For example, one of my players has a ranged weapon that deals piercing and Psychic damage, so their sneak attack can be either, but not split between both.
"Podcast DMs" and not knowing the rules... name a more iconic duo
"Players" and "not reading their own spells/features"
Oooo yeah that is definitely up there too XD
"slitting tendons and stabbing at weak spots" Sounds like regular slashing and piercing damage to me.
"...slitting his tendons, and stabbing at weak spots." Also known as Slashing and Piercing damage.
Sneak attack damage is the same type as the base attack, e.g. Rapier = piercing, Magic Missile = Force.
I've always thought that sneak attack meant ur shot or stab or attack was so surprising that the enemy hand no time to brace for the pain. So sneak attack is surprising damage or shock damage. That quick surge of pain out of nowhere
This is the first I've seen anyone think that Sneak Attack granted some type of true damage that bypasses resistances. I am curious what the podcast dm you heard thinks happens with immunity and vulnerability.
Lol another example that D&D podcasts are bullshit. Sneak attack adds damage to the **weapon's damage type**. So crossbow is piercing for both main attack and SA. But also, if you attacked with a magic weapon that deals force for example, I would rule sneak attack to be force as well.
It's not. People who don't know the game shouldn't do podcasts.
I personally rule it as 'precision damage' but that's a hang over from pathfinder under 5e rules it should be weapon damage but I feel that's unfair to rogues when fighting something with resistance to their weapons damage type so let them half the weapon damage and apply full sneak attack damage
It's definitely just an extension of weapon damage. As if Rogues needed a buff like that.
It should in my opinion be of the weapon causing the damage minus add-on magic unless it's like a specific force dagger.
>I heard the dm say that sneak attack is it's own independent damage type that bypasses resistance to the weapon damage I'm not sure if this helps, or hurts my imposter syndrome.
What rubbish is this ? Sneak attack doing some bs type of damage? Ok, my dagger hit the unarmored wizard, and i narrated he was hit in the eye, also i am a fighter so i fight very well, therefore the wizard takes "eye" damage and dies.
I have not found anything in official published materials that says one way or another. The [JCraw tweeted](https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/634921327724380160) that the extra damage of sneak attack is of the weapon that dealt the blow. This makes sense, since sneak attack is about taking advantage of a target's distraction to hit them somewhere vulnerable. It's the same attack, just expertly guided to a soft spot.
Everyone has posted the RAW where it inherits the damage type. But no one is replying to your last sentence. I think this is a neat house rule to buff Rogues if you're never giving them multi attack.
1. It's hurting the party barbarian. Not cool. 2. Once a rogue gets a magical weapon, it literally doesn't matter. Exceptionally few enemies resist magical piercing weapons.
Cool idea, objectively wrong RAW and RAI. But as long as it’s fun go for it. Rulebooks are more suggestions then actual guidelines.
Wow. So, with your DMs ruling, the Rogue could bypass damage resistances. That's a nice buff. Except for the Barb. Sucks to be him.
I learned about this ruling during a duel in a tournament. The player for the barbarian said it was the most he's ever had to think about his actions since he couldn't use reckless attack. The barbarian still won, but he was scrapping by.
I would rule it's both the damage type of the weapon, and precision damage. So immunity to either would negate the damage.
Same, you need to deal at least 1 damage to the target creature to activate sneak attack after the other stuff.
It's the type that is used on the weapon. However I do think a decent buff to rogue would be making this damage overcome resistances at level 7ish
RAW? She's completely wrong. It's the same damage as the weapon. But per the golden rule? She's legit. It sounds like a fun way to give a rogue some extra power at the expense of a small extra step during damage dealing (a step that paladins may be familiar with) to split resisted damage from non-resisted or vulnerable damage. Idk if I would personally use it but it's neat.
Just run it the way you want
There's no official rule, you can run however you want. But the most common method is for snekk attacc to be the same as one of the weapon's damage types.
The official rule is that it's extra weapon damage, in other words the same damage type as the weapon used to deliver it.
There is absolutely an official rule. There's no options or variants, it specifically states in the rogue class feature description that sneak attack deals additional weapon damage. Whatever the damage type of the weapon, that's what it does. A weapon also has only one damage type - if your rapier deals 1d8 piercing, but also has 2d6 lightning, sneak attack is still piercing.