Extra Damage

95 posts / 0 new
Last post

After some discussion in IRC, I have come to the conclusion that the current CO-concensus on the topic of extra damage is incorrect. This is not a statement I make lightly. Ergo, I shall have to back-up my position using the rules as we have them.

The starting point of the argument is whether or not powrs such as Hellish Rebuke and Dire Radiance will add your damage mods again when their conditions trigger. This progressed to an argument about extra damage and how extra damage never adds mods again...this, I have discovered, is incorrect. I will lay out the foundation for this belief:

The rules do not define any term that goes by the name 'Extra Damage'

This is very serious. You cannot state that 'extra damage does not add mods again' when there is nothing in the rules regarding extra damage - and especially nothing that says you do or do not add mods to it. In other words, the defined term 'Extra Damage' is a fabricated construction. It exists only on the Character Optimisation boards and nowhere else in D&D.

From this fact, any assumptions based on the term 'extra damage' must be re-evaluated and - importantly - without bias. Previous arguments relating to extra damage are no longer relevant because they cannot be as 'extra damage' (the rules entry) does not exist.

Before everyone overacts, however, there is an important caveat I must make. In the vast majority of circumstances, this revelation is not relevant. In fact, the CO short-hand 'extra damage does not apply mods' is applicable in the vast majority of situations.

But why?

Simply because 'damage rolls’, taken as a whole, only add mods once. Most case of additional damage that exists in the game is added into the original attack. The main striker features for example – sneak attack, hunter's quarry and warlock's curse – are all added into the attack you apply them to. They become part of the attack's damage roll as stated in their relevant rules text. This means they are not separate - they are part of the attack they are improving. They are part of one large damage roll. This is the case with the vast majority of bonus damage. And, as they are mostly additions to the attack's damage roll, they do not gain mods again.

This, I believe, is where the extra damage short hand comes from. It's an easy simplification and correct in most cases. However,

There are anomalies that do not fit the usual pattern. The Warlock powers Hellish Rebuke and Dire Radiance (the powers that started the discussion) are two such exceptions. Unlike other instances of extra damage, such as sneak attack et al, they are not explicitly part of the first damage roll that the power allows you to make.

As they are not explicitly part of the same damage roll and, given they have separate triggers that could occur many turns after the original attack has succeeded, the only logical conclusion to make is they are a separate damage roll. And - as separate damage rolls - they are entitled to all the modifiers that damage rolls are usually accompanied by (such as your implement bonus, weapon focus if it applies, etc) as per the damage roll rules.

In summation: extra damage isn't a defined rules term and can't be used as the foundation of an argument (despite its usefulness as shorthand). Most sources of additional damage state they are part of the original power/attack/damage roll and - therefore - do not apply your static modifiers again. This, I believe, is the origin of the CO-shorthand 'extra damage'. This short hand is not useful in all instances, however, and as is the case with Hellish Rebuke and certain other powers this assumption is incorrect. The conditional triggers of these powers are not stated to be part of the original damage roll and, unlike most cases of extra damage, do not occur with the original roll either - they are separate: both by their wording and by their differing triggers and time frames.

So in conclusion, Hellish Rebuke, Dire Radiance and a rare smattering of other instances do allow you to apply your mods again. And be careful not to mistake convenient short hand for gospel.

I agree completely.  Bonus Damage as a term is never defined, and the rules are clear about Separate damage rolls.  Adding the word bonus does not somehow magically invalidate this fact as it is never defined, and most instances of bonus damage are added to the attack, and thus the same damage roll, so in general it should change nothing.
A note to all who think I am being aggressive or angry- 99% of the time, I do not intend to be. I apologize if you think I am attacking you, odds are very strong that I am not. The only exceptions are when people become extremely uncivil to me, and even then I usually ignore them. I think it is very obvious when I am really mad; if I just seem generally abrasive, it is a reflection of my thought process rather than a state of emotion. I have the greatest respect for those who can debate rationally, even if we come to different conclusions. I am Blue/White
I am Blue/White
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I'm both orderly and rational. I value control, information, and order. I love structure and hierarchy, and will actively use whatever power or knowledge I have to maintain it. At best, I am lawful and insightful; at worst, I am bureaucratic and tyrannical.
After some discussion in IRC, I have come to the conclusion that the current CO-concensus on the topic of extra damage is incorrect.

Not directly relevant, but I'm wondering if I should start a wiki page off the CO group to keep track of "concensus" things like this.  At least it would let us keep track of the threads were these issues are discussed.


"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima

After some discussion in IRC, I have come to the conclusion that the current CO-concensus on the topic of extra damage is incorrect.

Not directly relevant, but I'm wondering if I should start a wiki page off the CO group to keep track of "concensus" things like this.  At least it would let us keep track of the threads were these issues are discussed.





That would be nice, Kil but I don't think it'll ever happen. There's just too much that's left unsaid to put into words easily - and sometimes corner cases like this are only relevant in very specific situations. Still, I believe it's important that these things do get scrutinised and aired.


That said, as a respected poster yourself, do you have an opinion on one side of the argument or the other?

I disagree on the premise that while there is no hard-and-fast rule to support the current consensus of how all instances of extra damage are treated, there is none to support the contrary as either. The RAW is admittedly vague, which was agreed upon by all participants of the IRC argument. As such, the best that can be done is to apply a logical premise and derive a ruling from it. My argument is that "extra" is not an empty term, but an implication of that the subsequent damage figure is part of the original damage figure. As such, modifiers would not apply to it. It also has the handy effect of providing an easy-to-recognize "keyword", if you will (if it says extra, no mods), which is nice to have. Of course, I can't conclusively prove my premise, but I would point out that neither can you, and neither has the burden of proof, which means that until an official, developer-sponosored ruling comes out, both are equally valid.

I do appreciate this thread, though, because I believe it will improve the odds of such a ruling's occurrence.
That's my argument exactly, LDB. It is vague because there's no definite ruling per the RAW which is why I believe my argument to be correct. Most instances of extra damage (if we can still call it that) apply explictly to the attack at the same time as part of the same damage roll. Because it's one damage roll, it only applies mods once (per the damage roll rules). This statement is RAW and absolutely necessary for game balance (hence our shorthand).

However, the statement about damage rolls doesn't make all extra damage a part of the original attack roll. Indeed, in the absence of an actual ruling (if one is deemed necessary) we can only follow the powers and features as written. In the case of sneak attack (as it is an easy example) this is to make it apart of the original damage roll. In the case of Hellish Rebuke, this is not the case so logically it is a seperate damage roll (as it is not part of the first one unlike Sneak Attack).
Well, the Rules Compendium is going to have at least some mention of "extra damage."  It might just muddy the waters even further, but it will at least get mentioned.

a power doesn't have to hit a target to deal extra damage - it needs only to deal damage to the target.



Quoted from this post at Enworld.
I believe that's reffering to such things as the additional damage you do on criticals. If I recall, you can't do damage of that sort unless the attack itself deals damage. Something my Pacifist Clerics have had to work around by taking implements with alternate crit effects.
wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg...

FAQ for Player's Handbook 2

5. With a power like Explosive Pyre do I add my implement bonus to extra damage rolled when and enemy enters a square adjacent to the target?



Yes, each time you for roll damage with an implement power you add your enhancement bonus.


I disagree on the premise that while there is no hard-and-fast rule to support the current consensus of how all instances of extra damage are treated, there is none to support the contrary as either. The RAW is admittedly vague, which was agreed upon by all participants of the IRC argument. As such, the best that can be done is to apply a logical premise and derive a ruling from it. My argument is that "extra" is not an empty term, but an implication of that the subsequent damage figure is part of the original damage figure. As such, modifiers would not apply to it. It also has the handy effect of providing an easy-to-recognize "keyword", if you will (if it says extra, no mods), which is nice to have. Of course, I can't conclusively prove my premise, but I would point out that neither can you, and neither has the burden of proof, which means that until an official, developer-sponosored ruling comes out, both are equally valid.

I do appreciate this thread, though, because I believe it will improve the odds of such a ruling's occurrence.




I certainly respect your opinion/viewpoint LDB, even though it is different from my own.  Your experience and contributions speak for themselves.  I would pose you this question then to clarify your thoughts- if the "Extra" damage of Hellish Rebuke is in fact considered to be part of the original damage roll, and thus does not qualify as a separate damage roll, what happens if you crit on your attack?  Does the extra damage (if it triggers) get maximized?  Because we do know that other bonus damage (Sneak Attack, Hunter's Quarry, etc) is maximized because it is not contingent upon the hit being a critical.  
A note to all who think I am being aggressive or angry- 99% of the time, I do not intend to be. I apologize if you think I am attacking you, odds are very strong that I am not. The only exceptions are when people become extremely uncivil to me, and even then I usually ignore them. I think it is very obvious when I am really mad; if I just seem generally abrasive, it is a reflection of my thought process rather than a state of emotion. I have the greatest respect for those who can debate rationally, even if we come to different conclusions. I am Blue/White
I am Blue/White
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I'm both orderly and rational. I value control, information, and order. I love structure and hierarchy, and will actively use whatever power or knowledge I have to maintain it. At best, I am lawful and insightful; at worst, I am bureaucratic and tyrannical.
*blink*, so some people thought that Hellish Rebuke doesn't deal implement bonus damage when you take damage later?
I disagree on the premise that while there is no hard-and-fast rule to support the current consensus of how all instances of extra damage are treated, there is none to support the contrary as either. The RAW is admittedly vague, which was agreed upon by all participants of the IRC argument. As such, the best that can be done is to apply a logical premise and derive a ruling from it. My argument is that "extra" is not an empty term, but an implication of that the subsequent damage figure is part of the original damage figure. As such, modifiers would not apply to it. It also has the handy effect of providing an easy-to-recognize "keyword", if you will (if it says extra, no mods), which is nice to have. Of course, I can't conclusively prove my premise, but I would point out that neither can you, and neither has the burden of proof, which means that until an official, developer-sponosored ruling comes out, both are equally valid.

I do appreciate this thread, though, because I believe it will improve the odds of such a ruling's occurrence.




I certainly respect your opinion/viewpoint LDB, even though it is different from my own.  Your experience and contributions speak for themselves.  I would pose you this question then to clarify your thoughts- if the "Extra" damage of Hellish Rebuke is in fact considered to be part of the original damage roll, and thus does not qualify as a separate damage roll, what happens if you crit on your attack?  Does the extra damage (if it triggers) get maximized?  Because we do know that other bonus damage (Sneak Attack, Hunter's Quarry, etc) is maximized because it is not contingent upon the hit being a critical.  



Critical damage does not because the rules state it does not - it's unfortunately not applicable.

Still, the addition of the word 'extra' does in no way indicate that the roll is apart of the original power. As extra has no concrete rules definition, it cannot be used to support this line of reasoning (as I mentioned in my original post) and because of this only powers that state they are part of the original power should be assumed to be apart of it.
No no, I think you misunderstood.  I didn't mean the Crit Bonus Die, that is explicit.  I meant the additional 1d6 + con mod from hellish rebuke.  LDB seems to be indicating that he believes the Bonus 1d6 from hellish rebuke (if you get hit) is to be considered part of the original attack, and that is why it does not receive the bonus damage from your mods (implement/focus/etc).  If that is so, then logically it should be maximized if the original attack was a crit, because under his interpretation, it is part of that damage roll, and is not contingent upon critting (like crit dice are).  Does that make more sense what I am asking?

EDIT- FYI, I agree with your interpretation, but I wanted to ask LDB (and others that agree with his) what their thought is on this issue if they are indeed correct. 
A note to all who think I am being aggressive or angry- 99% of the time, I do not intend to be. I apologize if you think I am attacking you, odds are very strong that I am not. The only exceptions are when people become extremely uncivil to me, and even then I usually ignore them. I think it is very obvious when I am really mad; if I just seem generally abrasive, it is a reflection of my thought process rather than a state of emotion. I have the greatest respect for those who can debate rationally, even if we come to different conclusions. I am Blue/White
I am Blue/White
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I'm both orderly and rational. I value control, information, and order. I love structure and hierarchy, and will actively use whatever power or knowledge I have to maintain it. At best, I am lawful and insightful; at worst, I am bureaucratic and tyrannical.
No no, I think you misunderstood.  I didn't mean the Crit Bonus Die, that is explicit.  I meant the additional 1d6 + con mod from hellish rebuke.  LDB seems to be indicating that he believes the Bonus 1d6 from hellish rebuke (if you get hit) is to be considered part of the original attack, and that is why it does not receive the bonus damage from your mods (implement/focus/etc).  If that is so, then logically it should be maximized if the original attack was a crit, because under his interpretation, it is part of that damage roll, and is not contingent upon critting (like crit dice are).  Does that make more sense what I am asking?

EDIT- FYI, I agree with your interpretation, but I wanted to ask LDB (and others that agree with his) what their thought is on this issue if they are indeed correct. 



Ah, that is an interesting point. If it were part of the original attack (which as you know I don't believe) it would be maximised had the original Hellish Rebuke been a crit as it would be 'part of the same damage roll'. A curious consequence.
Curious, perhaps, but very logical to me. 
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Not making an argument yet, but here's the CS reply I got a while back:

community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...

Question



This is one of those annoying Rules Lawyers questions. I'm looking for a clarification about what constitutes a 'damage roll' (ie, I'd like to see an FAQ about this), and am using Hellish Rebuke as the most confusing example I can find. So please provide reasoning (or just provide reasoning in the FAQ answer, that also works. smile.gif )

Setup:
I'm a Infernal Warlock with a +1 Rod. I use "Hellish Rebuke" on a monster, and leave it with 1 hitpoint. The monster then attacks me on it's turn anyway, hits, and deals damage to me. Hellish Rebuke's kicker kicks in, I roll a 6 on the damage die, and kill it.

1. How much damage did I do?
If the damage roll is a separate damage roll, the +1 from my Rod applies. But if it's part of the original damage roll ("deals 1d6 *extra* fire damage) then it only deals the damage of the rolled damage die.

2. Does Resistance apply? If it's a separate damage roll, then Resist Fire 5 would apply. If it's part of the same damage roll ("extra"), then my original attacks damage already overcame the fire resistance, and the extra damage won't have to overcome fire resistance again.

3. Did the monster damage me? If it's part of the earlier damage roll, then I killed it before it damaged me, and the universe explodes from the paradox. smile.gif

********************
Page Number: 132
Book Name: Player's Handbook


Answer




Thank you for contacting us. Here are the answers to your questions:
1. How much damage did I do?
If the damage roll is a separate damage roll, the +1 from my Rod applies. But if it's part of the original damage roll ("deals 1d6 *extra* fire damage) then it only deals the damage of the rolled damage die.
A: 1d6+Con modifier+1 from rod. It is separate damage.

2. Does Resistance apply? If it's a separate damage roll, then Resist Fire 5 would apply. If it's part of the same damage roll ("extra"), then my original attacks damage already overcame the fire resistance, and the extra damage won't have to overcome fire resistance again.
A: separate roles, resistance would apply.

3. Did the monster damage me? If it's part of the earlier damage roll, then I killed it before it damaged me, and the universe explodes from the paradox. smile.gif
A: You have to take damage for the secondary damage applies to target creature, no paradox occurs.

Please let me know if you need anymore help!
  [standard sig erased]
Jamie

"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima

No no, I think you misunderstood.  I didn't mean the Crit Bonus Die, that is explicit.  I meant the additional 1d6 + con mod from hellish rebuke.  LDB seems to be indicating that he believes the Bonus 1d6 from hellish rebuke (if you get hit) is to be considered part of the original attack, and that is why it does not receive the bonus damage from your mods (implement/focus/etc).  If that is so, then logically it should be maximized if the original attack was a crit, because under his interpretation, it is part of that damage roll, and is not contingent upon critting (like crit dice are).  Does that make more sense what I am asking?

EDIT- FYI, I agree with your interpretation, but I wanted to ask LDB (and others that agree with his) what their thought is on this issue if they are indeed correct. 



Ah, that is an interesting point. If it were part of the original attack (which as you know I don't believe) it would be maximised had the original Hellish Rebuke been a crit as it would be 'part of the same damage roll'. A curious consequence.



there is an official response
wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg...

FAQ for Player's Handbook 2

5. With a power like Explosive Pyre do I add my implement bonus to extra damage rolled when and enemy enters a square adjacent to the target?




Yes, each time you for roll damage with an implement power you add your enhancement bonus.



Yes, but the point is there isn't really a definition anywhere to distinguish Hellish Rebuke's secondary component from Sneak Attack.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
No no, I think you misunderstood.  I didn't mean the Crit Bonus Die, that is explicit.  I meant the additional 1d6 + con mod from hellish rebuke.  LDB seems to be indicating that he believes the Bonus 1d6 from hellish rebuke (if you get hit) is to be considered part of the original attack, and that is why it does not receive the bonus damage from your mods (implement/focus/etc).  If that is so, then logically it should be maximized if the original attack was a crit, because under his interpretation, it is part of that damage roll, and is not contingent upon critting (like crit dice are).  Does that make more sense what I am asking?

EDIT- FYI, I agree with your interpretation, but I wanted to ask LDB (and others that agree with his) what their thought is on this issue if they are indeed correct. 



Ah, that is an interesting point. If it were part of the original attack (which as you know I don't believe) it would be maximised had the original Hellish Rebuke been a crit as it would be 'part of the same damage roll'. A curious consequence.



there is an official response
wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg...

FAQ for Player's Handbook 2

5. With a power like Explosive Pyre do I add my implement bonus to extra damage rolled when and enemy enters a square adjacent to the target?




Yes, each time you for roll damage with an implement power you add your enhancement bonus.





It's worth noting that despite linking to the compendium entry on extra damage, it's a mistake to assume they intended to use extra damage as a rules term in the question; Explosive Pyre doesn't deal "extra damage", it just deals "damage."

there is an official response
wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg...

FAQ for Player's Handbook 2

5. With a power like Explosive Pyre do I add my implement bonus to extra damage rolled when and enemy enters a square adjacent to the target?




Yes, each time you for roll damage with an implement power you add your enhancement bonus.



We all understand/have read that.  They are saying that the word "extra" in those specific powers (which you will notice is NOT present in Explosive Pyre) implies that they should be treated as most other sources that say "extra", like Sneak Attack, which does not allow you to re-add your mods.  Again, I believe that the word "Extra" is just an artifact of before the PHB2 ruling came out and people had this question, and that the PHB2 makes it pretty clear (its not rolled even on the same turn, so it clearly must be a different damage roll), but that doesn't mean that just re-quoting that is going to convince anyone.
A note to all who think I am being aggressive or angry- 99% of the time, I do not intend to be. I apologize if you think I am attacking you, odds are very strong that I am not. The only exceptions are when people become extremely uncivil to me, and even then I usually ignore them. I think it is very obvious when I am really mad; if I just seem generally abrasive, it is a reflection of my thought process rather than a state of emotion. I have the greatest respect for those who can debate rationally, even if we come to different conclusions. I am Blue/White
I am Blue/White
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I'm both orderly and rational. I value control, information, and order. I love structure and hierarchy, and will actively use whatever power or knowledge I have to maintain it. At best, I am lawful and insightful; at worst, I am bureaucratic and tyrannical.
Yes, but the point is there isn't really a definition anywhere to distinguish Hellish Rebuke's secondary component from Sneak Attack.



Well, the point I'm making is that there is - sneak attack says explicitly that it's added to the original attack (like many cases) and Hellish Rebuke (and a few other cases) do not. Ergo, my belief that it's seperate. Kilpads points at that CS supports this interpretation which is in-line with the rules I've presented.
To be fair, my CS question had some clear evidence of wonkyness that ruling the other way might have produced.  CS has a bias toward "what makes sense", so that type of wording can lead CS to give you the answer you want.

"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima

Well if you get to add mods to second damage roll then powers such as Booming Blade became much more useful. As discussed in IRC:

Paragon Swordmage with WLR, WLMR, and Booming Blade needs to manage his marks (easy to do, unless you've house ruled WLMR to work as originally written) and if he hits an unmarked target with Booming Blade that creature is effectively locked in place.
Attack the Swordmage - Eat WLR and WLMR
Move Away - Eat Booming Blade's 1d6+Con+Feat+Item+Enhancement+Any Applicable Untyped damage
Attack Ally - Swordmage has plenty of Interrupts that don't require marks.

Not only that, but its possible that more than one of those can be triggered. Groovy. The Swordmage Catch-22 is back. 
I don't see any reason why you wouldn't be able to add bonus's such as enhancements/abilities or what not to this "extra damage".

But I belive this in the consolidated customer service stuff could help
(im at work had to cut and paste quick its the comment one down from this link)
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
Extra Damage is very well defined in the rules. From the Compendium:
Extra Damage: "Many powers and other effects grant the ability to deal extra damage. Extra damage is always in addition to other damage. This means an attack that deals no damage can’t deal extra damage."

This clearly is something different than a Damage Roll, which is also defined in the Compendium:
Damage Rolls: "Roll the damage indicated in the power description. If you’re using a weapon for the attack, the damage is some multiple of your weapon damage dice.
Add the ability modifier specified in the power description. Usually, this is the same ability modifier you used to determine your base attack bonus for the attack.
In addition, any of the following factors might apply to a damage roll: Racial or feat bonuses; An enhancement bonus (usually from a magic weapon or an implement); An item bonus; A power bonus; Untyped bonuses"

As we see, Extra Damage is something entirely different from a Damage Roll. Hence you don't add enhancement bonuses and most of the other damage bonuses to hit, as they explicitly are added to damage rolls (and only those).
There are only a few select pieces that "add to damage" (like Crippling Crush), and they're quite powerful and very sought after. I should know, considering how important these pieces are for Brutal Barrage optimisation...
so Langeweile, is it your contention, then, that the phrase, "If you take damage before the start of your next turn, your target takes an extra 1d6+con modifier fire damage" means that you are not making a damage roll?
Yes, because Extra Damage (note I capitalised the words) is something entirely different than a Damage Roll, as just explained with detailed reference.

Now you're free to houserule it otherwise. (We did - but than again you'll eat the Bag of Rats yourself as player if you try to abuse it at our table. Tongue out)
If you're looking for a way how to word that in a way that the current rules would bring a full damage roll again, then the power would need to be written like "[...] If you take damage before the end (sic!) of your next turn, you deal 1d6+con modifier fire damage to the target."
I have a different take on Hellish Rebuke. It's my contention that the word "extra" is thrown in rather haphazardly in the phrasing of this power and it's merely meant as a synonym for "additional". It is not meant to imply that this secondary damage roll counts as glossary-defined "extra damage".

Said another way, despite the presence of the word "extra", this "retribution damage" (if we can call it that) is indeed a separate damage roll from the original damage roll, and as such both the aforementioned rolls individually benefit from the caster's implement bonus.
One interesting point I would bring up is certain feats/items turn curse or other extra damage features into a certain type, like painful oath with radiant/necrotic or eldritch admixture gloves turning curse damage into cold/fire.  In these situations the original power gains that keyword.   This definitely tracks with the idea that they are included in the original damage roll and not a separate one.

What happens in this situation with Hellish Rebuke.  Lets say you hit the target with a cold admixtured curse (from the gloves). Then you take damage.  Is the extra damage just fire, or is it still cold/fire like the original attack? 
I disagree on the premise that while there is no hard-and-fast rule to support the current consensus of how all instances of extra damage are treated, there is none to support the contrary as either. The RAW is admittedly vague, which was agreed upon by all participants of the IRC argument. As such, the best that can be done is to apply a logical premise and derive a ruling from it. My argument is that "extra" is not an empty term, but an implication of that the subsequent damage figure is part of the original damage figure. As such, modifiers would not apply to it. It also has the handy effect of providing an easy-to-recognize "keyword", if you will (if it says extra, no mods), which is nice to have. Of course, I can't conclusively prove my premise, but I would point out that neither can you, and neither has the burden of proof, which means that until an official, developer-sponosored ruling comes out, both are equally valid.

I do appreciate this thread, though, because I believe it will improve the odds of such a ruling's occurrence.




I certainly respect your opinion/viewpoint LDB, even though it is different from my own.  Your experience and contributions speak for themselves.  I would pose you this question then to clarify your thoughts- if the "Extra" damage of Hellish Rebuke is in fact considered to be part of the original damage roll, and thus does not qualify as a separate damage roll, what happens if you crit on your attack?  Does the extra damage (if it triggers) get maximized?  Because we do know that other bonus damage (Sneak Attack, Hunter's Quarry, etc) is maximized because it is not contingent upon the hit being a critical.  


I think it's a mistake to think that we can treat all instances of "extra" in the same way.  So I agree with LDB if we're talking about Sneak Attack, but I agree with x3nth10nif we're talking about Hellish Rebuke.  I posted this in a thread on Hellish Rebuke in the Q&A forum:

The secondary damage from Hellish Rebuke needs to be a separate damage roll, because it can occur anytime between the time of the initial attack and the end of your next turn.  What applies to Hellish Rebuke does not necessarily apply to Sneak Attack, as the sneak attack damage is clearly part of the damage dealt from the initial attack - it's not a source of damage that may or may not occur sometime within the next turn.

Here's the problem for Hellish Rebuke if LDB is right that "the subsequent damage figure is part of the original damage figure" - your original damage roll is technically not resolved until the end of your next turn.  For example, say my initial damage with Hellish Rebuke would bring the target to 1 HP.  Then the target attacks me and damages me, which triggers Hellish Rebuke and kills the target.  If that secondary damage from HR was really just part of the original damage, then paradoxically the original damage was enough to kill the target, and thus the target shouldn't have been able to attack me in the first place.

I don't know how decisive this is in the overall debate, but at least for Hellish Rebuke it can't be the case that the secondary damage is considered to be part of the original damage.  It has to be considered as separate.  So if being separate means it can't count as "extra damage" to the original damage roll, then it's a separate damage roll where modifiers can be included.

Again, I think we have to be cautious about being able to interpret all instances of "extra" as the same, since they're not always consistent in their usage of such terms, and it's not clear the rules for Sneak Attack could apply to Hellish Rebuke given the timing of the damage.
Black letter rules are written imperfectly by imperfect people... which is why I ignore debates like this.  Simply do whatever seems the most fun within your gaming group.  This will often mean you take the most balanced interpretation even over the black letter rules. 

While I would love a set of rules so clear, balanced and error free that you could make a "sport" out of the game, WotC has made it pretty clear by their (in)actions that 4e will not be that game.  DM fiat may be a cop out, but it works and it is what we have.  I admonish anyone to not try to rules lawyer in an unbalanced ruling.  If you do, you're missing the point even if you're correct.
Yes, because Extra Damage (note I capitalised the words) is something entirely different than a Damage Roll, as just explained with detailed reference.

Now you're free to houserule it otherwise. (We did - but than again you'll eat the Bag of Rats yourself as player if you try to abuse it at our table. Tongue out)
If you're looking for a way how to word that in a way that the current rules would bring a full damage roll again, then the power would need to be written like "[...] If you take damage before the end (sic!) of your next turn, you deal 1d6+con modifier fire damage to the target."



I am free to house rule anything I like, anytime I like, so I don't see how that enters the debate.

However, the phrase extra damage is contained in both the Hunter's Quarry text, Warlock's Curse text and Sneak Attack text specifically, together, and in multiple instances. The phrase extra damage is contained nowhere in the Hellish Rebuke text, and thus, I call your assertion into question.
May want to read Hellish Rebuke again.

Hit: 1d6 + Constitution modifier fire damage. If you take damage before the end of your next turn, the target takes an extra 1d6 + Constitution modifier fire damage.
 
Which is the main problem.  Both curse/quarry/sneak attack and HR say extra damage.  In one case its to the initial attack and in the case of HR or DR its a roll following a condition.

Unless you are differentiating between extra --- damage and extra damage. 

Of course you have to differntiate between 'extra' and 'extra damage'. Words not together cannot be taken as being part of the same phrase. 

Extra Damage is very well defined in the rules. From the Compendium:
Extra Damage: "Many powers and other effects grant the ability to deal extra damage. Extra damage is always in addition to other damage. This means an attack that deals no damage can’t deal extra damage."

This clearly is something different than a Damage Roll, which is also defined in the Compendium:
Damage Rolls: "Roll the damage indicated in the power description. If you’re using a weapon for the attack, the damage is some multiple of your weapon damage dice.
Add the ability modifier specified in the power description. Usually, this is the same ability modifier you used to determine your base attack bonus for the attack.
In addition, any of the following factors might apply to a damage roll: Racial or feat bonuses; An enhancement bonus (usually from a magic weapon or an implement); An item bonus; A power bonus; Untyped bonuses"

As we see, Extra Damage is something entirely different from a Damage Roll. Hence you don't add enhancement bonuses and most of the other damage bonuses to hit, as they explicitly are added to damage rolls (and only those).
There are only a few select pieces that "add to damage" (like Crippling Crush), and they're quite powerful and very sought after. I should know, considering how important these pieces are for Brutal Barrage optimisation...



To this:

Firstly, being extra damage doesn't preclude it also being a damage roll.

Secondly, as already pointed out, without the phrase 'extra damage' being used conclusively together any entry of text cannot be called 'extra damage'. If you check the source of that rule you posted all instances of 'extra damage' are clearly labled as such in one phrase. Two words apart cannot be construed to mean the same as two words together even if they're in the same sentence.

Thirdly, you may want to check the source of that extra damage quote. It's from the monster manuals and not a player resource. NPCs and PCs are built using different rule sets and differing rules apply to each. You cannot say that a rules passage in any of the monster manuals applies to a PC character unless there is a corresponding PC rules source. To say otherwise goes against 4e's design philosophy that players need not own non-player resources and that all rules applicable to players will be in books that players should own.
I have a different take on Hellish Rebuke. It's my contention that the word "extra" is thrown in rather haphazardly in the phrasing of this power and it's merely meant as a synonym for "additional". It is not meant to imply that this secondary damage roll counts as glossary-defined "extra damage".

Said another way, despite the presence of the word "extra", this "retribution damage" (if we can call it that) is indeed a separate damage roll from the original damage roll, and as such both the aforementioned rolls individually benefit from the caster's implement bonus.



+1

I think EasyT hit the nail on the head here.
One way to reconcile the rules with regard to the difference between the additional damage from hellish rebuke and things like hunter's quarry/curse/SA...

The hellish rebuke says:
"the target takes an extra 1d6 + Constitution modifier fire damage"

While the others say:
"the attack deals extra damage based on your level"

The latter uses the specific phrase "extra damage", while the former says "extra [stuff] damage"....so while hellish rebuke has damage that is extra, it is not specifically "extra damage" as the rules term. This would exempt hellish rebuke from the bonus damage limitations while not creating the same issues with the striker class features.
May want to read Hellish Rebuke again.

Hit: 1d6 + Constitution modifier fire damage. If you take damage before the end of your next turn, the target takes an extra 1d6 + Constitution modifier fire damage.
 
Which is the main problem.  Both curse/quarry/sneak attack and HR say extra damage.  In one case its to the initial attack and in the case of HR or DR its a roll following a condition.

Unless you are differentiating between extra --- damage and extra damage. 



Extra is not Extra Damage in the same way Large is not Large Monkeys or Space is not Space Marines.

You can ignore chunks of text if you like, but it doesnt make Extra into Extra Damage.

So in conclusion, Hellish Rebuke, Dire Radiance and a rare smattering of other instances do allow you to apply your mods again.



Well planned and fun to read.  When you say at the end that applying your mods again to the incidental (the secondary) damage roll, are you including everything - wands, buffs, etc?  Or do you mean damage roll plus stat modifier?

I looked up Hellish Rebuke so as to better follow your post, and I see that the damage is listed somewhat ambiguously:

"Hit: 1d6 + Constitution modifier fire damage. If you take damage before the end of your next turn, the target takes an extra 1d6 + Constitution modifier fire damage."

Clearly, the damage for both is 1d6 + CON modifier.  It sounds as though you're saying that both rolls are entitled to all bonus damage not associated with the original 1d6+ CON.  Is my understanding correct?

If so, then I like it.  (Of course I would.  I'm a player in this edition! Laughing

My DM would NEVER allow it though.  He'd take one look at it and say "You used your wand to inflict the initial spell - use all appropriate modifiers as additional damage.  For the second damage, should it come to apply, inflict 1d6+CON like the power says."

Can I understand why he'd rule that way?  I suppose so.  As a player, my standard action was used to inflict the spell.  *I* inflicted the initial damage, and since I'm buffed and using a wand, my modifiers apply.

As for the second roll, damage isn't inflicted by me anymore.  Damage is an afteraffect caused by a condition - a debuff, if you will.  The spell is now holding over the target's head a proverbial Sword of Damocles - but it's just a debuff effect.  I've already moved on to my next spell and am no longer even concentrating on the effect.  None of my bonuses matter anymore because I'm not a part of the process.

So I like what you had to say and hope you manage to get the power's wording changed so that the effect becomes more clear, but I already know why it won't fly for my DM and I can understand why he'd say so.

I'd really like to say again, well done.  That was an excellent essay.
A random Joe named Joe Randim.
Aye, spot on - exactly what I mean. And I agree, it is worded ambigiously. Hellish Rebuke and similar powers should probably be worded more explicitly in some way: more like some other sources of extra damage like sneak attack (clearly spelt out) or more like explosive pyre or flame spiral that are clearly very seperate. Alas they are not though and so with have this confusion.

Well planned and fun to read.  When you say at the end that applying your mods again to the incidental (the secondary) damage roll, are you including everything - wands, buffs, etc?  Or do you mean damage roll plus stat modifier?

I looked up Hellish Rebuke so as to better follow your post, and I see that the damage is listed somewhat ambiguously:

"Hit: 1d6 + Constitution modifier fire damage. If you take damage  before the end of your next turn, the target takes an extra 1d6 +  Constitution modifier fire damage."

Clearly, the damage for both is 1d6 + CON modifier.  It sounds as though you're saying that both rolls are entitled to all bonus damage not associated with the original 1d6+ CON.  Is my understanding correct?

If so, then I like it.  (Of course I would.  I'm a player in this edition! Laughing

My DM would NEVER allow it though.  He'd take one look at it and say "You used your wand to inflict the initial spell - use all appropriate modifiers as additional damage.  For the second damage, should it come to apply, inflict 1d6+CON like the power says."

Can I understand why he'd rule that way?  I suppose so.  As a player, my standard action was used to inflict the spell.  *I* inflicted the initial damage, and since I'm buffed and using a wand, my modifiers apply.

As for the second roll, damage isn't inflicted by me anymore.  Damage is an afteraffect caused by a condition - a debuff, if you will.  The spell is now holding over the target's head a proverbial Sword of Damocles - but it's just a debuff effect.  I've already moved on to my next spell and am no longer even concentrating on the effect.  None of my bonuses matter anymore because I'm not a part of the process.

So I like what you had to say and hope you manage to get the power's wording changed so that the effect becomes more clear, but I already know why it won't fly for my DM and I can understand why he'd say so.

I'd really like to say again, well done.  That was an excellent essay.



Just to note, I dont have any issue with DM's ruling it differently in their game, just like if the DM wants to rule Twin strike is 1(w)+ mods for one hit, or 2(w)+mods for two hits, I get that too.
But in that case, there is clear and present RAW, and to do otherwise is a houserule. Here, I feel that it's not as clear.
Sign In to post comments