Inevitable Doom -- the end of 4e?

26 posts / 0 new
Last post
A bit of back history: a couple of weeks ago there had been a discussion on the board regarding the definition of damage rolls and what qualifies for bonuses to damage rolls. On the one side was the arguement that a damage roll was only specified in the original power due to beliefs of RAI and mitigating some rather unfortunate exploitations. On the other side was an arguement based on a RAW reading regarding RC definitions of a damage roll being any die rolled for damage without making any mention of the source. The discussion essentially came to a halt without any general consensus being reached and recommendations to just ask CustServ. I will go out on a limb and assume that never happend, which isn't surprising considering their poor track record. Which brings us to the thread title...

While fiddling with a build idea for a lazy leader without any attack rolls, I took notice of the level 1 Encounter Cleric Power Inevitable Doom which has the effect line: "The next attack made against the target before the end of your next turn deals 2d8 extra damage on a hit or a miss, even if the attack normally deals no damage on a miss. This extra damage cannot benefit from bonuses to damage rolls." (Emphasis added mine).

"What is your point?" you may ask. Well, this is a clear example of an exception proving the rule of the RAW interpretation of a damage roll. Under the often assumed RAI reading of damage rolls, the emphasized text would be unnecessary since as extra damage, the bonus 2d8 would be ineligible for any bonuses to damage rolls. But by clearly stating that said damage roll cannot benefit in this specific example, Wizards is clearly making note that they did intend extra damage that includes a roll to satisfy as a damage roll and allow for bonuses.

So. Feel free to ruin DnD with 200 DPR auto hitting magic missles, damage zones stacked so high to auto kill, and brutal barrage builds hitting DPR into ever more absurd heights. God help us all.

(Sarcasm note: zones and BB are already dumb on their own. The abuse gained on MM is hardly disconcerting.)
One power restating something does not unmake a rule.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
It just enhances an already rock solid RAW argument. You can't even really say it isn't RAI, considering the language in the RC intentionally removed the single sentence from the PHB and rephrased the rest to cover extra damage that are rolls as being damage rolls.

This isn't really news though... I pointed this out when the devs asked CharOp for feedback on general errors in the rules.
One power restating something does not unmake a rule.



As had been discussed in the previous thread, if you can point to the actual rule that states that extra damage that is rolled is not a damage roll then you would have a point. But that rule does not exist, hence the debate. So when presented with a void of rulings, noting exceptions in powers helps establish the missing rules intent.

One power restating something does not unmake a rule.



As had been discussed in the previous thread, if you can point to the actual rule that states that extra damage that is rolled is not a damage roll then you would have a point. But that rule does not exist, hence the debate. So when presented with a void of rulings, noting exceptions in powers helps establish the missing rules intent.



Not that I give a crap about this argument as a whole, but your logic fails in the face of WotC's absurdity when it comes to updating RAW to match their RAI.  As soon as they change their RAI, or realize that their RAI isn't clear, they begin publishing all new RAW based on the RAI, examples include Insubstanial being ignored by Force, the revision of Warlock and Wizard zone damage to 1/turn, and zone, wall, and aura effects taking place on end of turn instead of start of turn.

So it may very well be that the new powers fall into this category, and are simply stating what will be the new RAW once they get around to finishing their mass-errata of powers (lol yeah right).  It's also entirely possible that those powers are just ensuring that you don't try to add modifiers twice (since WotC often forgets that diceless damage exists).
"Invokers are probably better round after round but Wizard dailies are devastating. Actually, devastating is too light a word. Wizard daily powers are soul crushing, encounter ending, havoc causing pieces of awesome." -AirPower25 Sear the Flesh, Purify the Soul; Harden the Heart, and Improve the Mind; Born of Blood, but Forged by Fire; The MECH warrior reaches perfection.
Damage rolls are an inherent trait of the power, and if the power does not require one it cannot be added via any external means. End of useful discussion.



Please feel free to quote any rule or power or literally any printed material to support that claim.

Zathris: The rules in the RC clearly state that you can only add bonuses to damage rolls once. And Inevitable Doom was published during the same time as the RC, so there was no need to write in the rule into every power when they could have just printed it once.
This appears to be a pretty solid argument for auto damage abilities if with a riding damage roll now triggering when you roll damage clauses (albeit only once, regardless of how many add ons)

I'm a bit suprised at the "zomg" magic missile will be absurd now!

I'll see what I can do, but I don't think it's going to be too crazy compared to what any other optimized for deeps char does at equal levels. 
I'll see what I can do, but I don't think it's going to be too crazy compared to what any other optimized for deeps char does at equal levels. 


Of course not, nothing is crazy compared to infinity, and there's what, 4 builds now that do infinity and 2 of them even do it pre-30.
"Invokers are probably better round after round but Wizard dailies are devastating. Actually, devastating is too light a word. Wizard daily powers are soul crushing, encounter ending, havoc causing pieces of awesome." -AirPower25 Sear the Flesh, Purify the Soul; Harden the Heart, and Improve the Mind; Born of Blood, but Forged by Fire; The MECH warrior reaches perfection.
I'm saying even if you look past infinity builds and look at suprising charge nut jobs, etc.

Suddenly actually having magic missile do half what are others are doing 95% of the time isn't crazy.   
This seems to be connected in some way to the question I asked on another thread:

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

And now I'm more confused than ever...

All I want to know if whether or not the additional [W] roll from suprising charge gets static bonuses added to it ... 

I love 4e, but really I get fed up with the number of odd rules, poorly written rules, rules without clear examples, all the errata that seems impossible to keep up with ...
Playing Scales of War

Rogue.jpg

This seems to be connected in some way to the question I asked on another thread:

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

And now I'm more confused than ever...

All I want to know if whether or not the additional [W] roll from suprising charge gets static bonuses added to it ... 

I love 4e, but really I get fed up with the number of odd rules, poorly written rules, rules without clear examples, all the errata that seems impossible to keep up with ...



Surpising Charge adds an extra weapon of damage.  So if you dealth [2d6 brutal 1] + 10, and you satisfy the conditions of surprising charge, you now deal [4d6 brutal1] + 10

I'm fairly certain this topic is a troll, as an entirely illogical arguement is being made.  I think your arguement is,

extra damage does not get modifiers
extra damage that is in the form of rolled dice exists
a specific power says "this extra damage (which is in the form of rolled dice) does not benefit from any modifiers"
therefore, extra damage in the form of rolled dice gets modifiers.

That is not logic.  Your argument is invalid. 
FWIW, that Assassin's Shroud power has been worded this way since day 1, and nobody heralded it as the end of 4th Edition back then AFAIK.

"Before you make an attack roll against the target, you choose to invoke either all your shrouds on it or none of them. If you invoke your shrouds, the attack deals 1d6 damage per shroud, minus one shroud if the attack misses, and all your shrouds then vanish from the target. This damage roll never benefits from bonuses to damage rolls, and is in addition to the attack’s damage, if any."
you're missing the logical part of that.  which is that we know damage roll riders never trigger more then once per attack.
The debate (and it is unsolved is as follows)

Attacks that do not have a roll, when something adds a damage roll do damage roll riders trigger?

Your example of the shroud seems (just like inevitable doom) to indivate that unless specifically noted they do infact trigger the riders since damage is now being rolled. 
Well...

The Dimension Door power from the PHB1 is a teleportation that explicitly states that you can't bring other people along.

So by this "logic", that exception clause "proves" that every other teleportation power that lacks this exception does allow you to bring others along. The game would have been broken a long time ago if a bit of localized reminder text would be proof of an otherwise nonexistent global rule. Thankfully rules don't work that way.

That's not what you'd call relevant to this though.

You actually just completely ignored the issue to focus on how it's being inferred.  

If you can point to a rule that says powers that do damage but do not roll it and then have a damage roll added do not benefit from powers that trigger off a damage roll...

Then by all means, talk about explicit rules.

The reason this is a ongoing debate here is because there are interpretations that are strong either way and having several powers that specifically say "this extra damage cannot benefit from riders" strengthens the argument that the power gains a damage roll from the power much the same way if a power adds say 1 point of fire damage the attack now has its keywords and the fire keyword.

The logic then gets extended to a power that has a damage roll added is now considered to have the fixed damage and the damage roll.  In this last phrase, there's nothing that breaks the "you can't get more than one trigger from a damage roll" rule or any other rule in it. 
Here's the thing with Inevitable Doom: the phrase "even if the attack normally deals no damage on a miss" is the exception to the normal rule of extra damage, which is "an effect that deals no damage cannot deal extra damage."  Just to make sure that everybody is clear on the matter, even if let's say the next attack was a power like Astral Seal, just because the said power has the Implement keyword doesn't mean it gets to suddenly add their enhancement bonus to the damage roll; the damage roll is still extra damage, and has been clarified to not benefit from ANY bonuses to damage rolls.

Also, note that Inevitable doom has only two keywords -- Divine, Shadow -- and does not make an attack roll.  The net result is basically this: you spend a standard action doing nothing, but the next attack does at least 2d8 damage flat out, hit or miss, even if it does half damage or no damage on a miss.

As for Assassin's Shroud, the simplest explanation is that there has never been any errata/update to the aforementioned class feature.  Given that the class was released in Dragon 379 -- well before the Rules Compendium was released -- the writer wanted to make sure that the power's restrictions was iron-clad, that it dealt only the given amount of damage.  IF an update for Assassin's Shroud was to be released however, I wouldn't be surprised if they would reword it almost exactly like Inevitable Doom, perhaps in this manner:

"Before you make an attack roll against the target, you choose to invoke either all your shrouds on it or none of them. If you invoke your shrouds, and the attack misses, one shroud disappears.  Your attack deals 1d6 extra damage for each remaining shroud, even if the attack normally deals no damage on a miss, then all remaining shrouds disappear. [This extra damage cannot benefit from bonuses to damage rolls.]"

If you add the segment that's bracketed, it's a bit longer than the original text, but I'm pretty sure that's how it would've been worded if the Assassin's Shroud was written after Rules Compendium was released.

Relevant source text: p.222 - 225 of the Rules Compendium, as well as magic item rules in p.280, the Implement keyword in p.312, and the Weapon keyword in p.317.
Show

You are Red/Blue!
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.

You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.

D&D Home Page - What Monster Are You? - D&D Compendium

57047238 wrote:
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
I Don't Always Play Strikers...But When I Do, I Prefer Vampire Stay Thirsty, My Friends
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery. What I hope to be my most useful contributions to the D&D Community: DM Idea: Collaborative Mapping, Classless 4E (homebrew system, that hopefully helps in D&D Next development), Gamma World 7E random character generator (by yours truly), and the Concept of Perfect Imbalance (for D&D Next and other TRPGs in development) Pre-3E D&D should be recognized for what they were: simulation wargames where people could tell stories with The Best Answer to "Why 4E?" Fun vs. Engaging
Shadowshift: The argument you presented with the assumption "extra damage does not get modifiers." Except that assumption isn't part of my argument. It is a common assumption, but it is not an actual rule. If someone can find it, that would be awesome, but it just isn't there.

Kurald: The difference in the two examples is that teleports aren't missing a basic rules clarification. And since there are varying effects that modify teleports to allow others to ride along, it is simply stating DD cannot benefit from any of those effects. Damage rolls, on the other hand, are missing a crucial element: does extra damage itself count as a damage roll? Since the general rule is not explicitly stated, having an exception based power is one way to infer what the general rule might be.

Chaosfang: The exception clause you mentioned only reinforces the exception I am noting. Inevitable Doom allows you to ignore the standard rule of adding bonus damage, even if no damage was originally done. But they don't want anything more added to that. Now, if the commonly assumed rule that extra damage does not count as a damage roll, nothing more would need said in the power, because as extra damage, you couldn't try in the first place. But by clearly stating you cannot, they are highlighting the idea that initially wanting to do so is actually valid.
This seems to be connected in some way to the question I asked on another thread:

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

And now I'm more confused than ever...

All I want to know if whether or not the additional [W] roll from suprising charge gets static bonuses added to it ... 

I love 4e, but really I get fed up with the number of odd rules, poorly written rules, rules without clear examples, all the errata that seems impossible to keep up with ...



It's like math.  If you have the equation '2x+10', and you add 1x, you get 3x+10.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
It does make me sad that unnecessary (but potentially still helpful) clarifying language will often be cited as evidence against a rule. Restating something does not make it false, but it can certainly confuse the issue.
Keith Richmond Living Forgotten Realms Epic Writing Director
Keithric: I agree. Clarifying language or restating cannot invalidate a rule. But this specific example lacks a rule to invalidate. Hence the debate.
Well...

The Dimension Door power from the PHB1 is a teleportation that explicitly states that you can't bring other people along.

So by this "logic", that exception clause "proves" that every other teleportation power that lacks this exception does allow you to bring others along. The game would have been broken a long time ago if a bit of localized reminder text would be proof of an otherwise nonexistent global rule. Thankfully rules don't work that way.




Looking at DD, it appears it was updated in August 2010 so that the wording would match between PHB1 and HotFL; the exclusion statement no longer exists.
It does make me sad that unnecessary (but potentially still helpful) clarifying language will often be cited as evidence against a rule. Restating something does not make it false, but it can certainly confuse the issue.

Except the actual rules also say it. This is being presented as additional evidence of the correct conclusion, not evidence in and of itself. But the reality of exception based design is that stuff like this usually isn't clarifying language, it is making sure a specific rule exists for this power because otherwise the general rule would apply. For the vast majority of powers that have specific over-riding langauge no one bats an eye because the general rule is accepted. Here the general rule is clear, but not accepted so people balk... but that isn't a problem with the argument.
Actually, the reality of the system is that it quite often is redundant clarifying language. It's only in theory that they wouldn't say more than necessary so as to avoid confusing people.

Eh, I'm not going to go and count but I've read nearly every power in 4e at one point or another and most of them have language that makes an exception, rather then language that reaffirms a general rule. There are more of the former then of the latter, so in a majority of cases it is true. The theoretical case is a closer match to reality.
That is not logic.  Your argument is invalid. 



bit.ly/7kQKWX
Sign In to post comments