4e Coup de grace/Instant death on a critical hit ruling

75 posts / 0 new
Last post
Iam playing whit a group in 4e, where we have the rule that "if you DEAL damage greater than or equal to the target´s bloodied value on a critical hit, then its instant dead". (just like the ruling for a coup de grace PH 288)

This rarely happens, but both monsters and PC have bite the dust that way, thats all fine but..... We had an episode, where I made a critical hit on a player and then he said when I told him the damage, "iam dead"... and then shortly after said "wait i have resist damage 7" which would make the damge he recieved 1 under his bloodid so it would not be an instant kill. (No cheat that was the number... lucky bastard )

But then we began to talk, would this save him since it says DEAL damage.
In theory he was DEALT the damage so he would die, but on the other hand he´s resist was enought to make the actual damage DEALT lower than his bloodied.

I choosed to rule it in his favor so i did not kill him, was that the right call or would he be dead?
He'd be dead, you dealt enough damage.

If your houserule was "If you take damage greater than or equal to your bloodied value from a critical hit, you die" he'd be alive.
Thanks for the answer.

Nice to know for future use, if a simular situation shoud occur.
Thanks for the answer.

Nice to know for future use, if a simular situation shoud occur.




On the other hand, since it is a house rule, you are free to be as lenient as you like with it. If you decide to change it to damage taken, rather than dealt, then there is no one who can point to a rulebook and argue with you. You have applied the ruling this way once already, I say that you have set a precedent that is fair, go ahead and change the houserule to reflect it.

 Yeah, definitely change the houserule to damage taken - it'll help avoid these situations in the future.

Show

I am the Magic Man.

(Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.)

 

I am the Lawnmower Man.

(I AM GOD HERE!)

 

I am the Skull God.

(Koo Koo Ka Choo)

 

There are reasons they call me Mad...

Damage that doesn't happen because of resistance is damage that you didn't deal.

There is no difference between damage dealt and damage taken.  They are the same number, period, in all cases.

If you had a circumstance where resistance reduces the damage that would have been dealt to 0, then no damage is dealt, and things that trigger off of damage being dealt do not happen.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Which triggers an interesting question, which is going to start coming up soon in my game:  What happens when a game effect triggers off damage dealt by an attack (reflecting it, for instance, or gaining THP equal to it), but that attack doesn't deal the same damage to each target?

In particular, I'm wondering about the interaction between Flame of Hope's F16 and Morninglord's - what happens if one of the targets is vulnerable Radiant and the others aren't?  How many THP do the allies in range gain when the Flame of Hope uses Second Wind?
Harrying your Prey, the Easy Way: A Hunter's Handbook - the first of what will hopefully be many CharOp efforts on my part. The Blinker - teleport everywhere. An Eladrin Knight/Eldritch Knight. CB != rules source.
THP is already solved.  THP doesn't stack, so the highest number is the one that gets applied.

The specifics of the effect in question matter a lot.

Vulnerability will increase Righeous Resurgence's THP generation, yes.  But it's irrelevant who it is or how many people it is, the highest THP generation will persist and all the others will get overwritten.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
There is no difference between damage dealt and damage taken.  They are the same number, period, in all cases.

Thank you for saying this.  Your explanation is logical, and doesn't resort to arbitrarily creating new game terms.  If there were a difference, "damage dealt" and "damage taken" would be game terms defined in a glossary.  This is a pet peeve of mine.

OD&D, 1E and 2E challenged the player. 3E challenged the character, not the player. Now 4E takes it a step further by challenging a GROUP OF PLAYERS to work together as a TEAM. That's why I love 4E.

"Your ability to summon a horde of celestial superbeings at will is making my ... BMX skills look a bit redundant."

"People treat their lack of imagination as if it's the measure of what's silly. Which is silly." - Noon

"Keep On The Shadowfell" would be hailed as a brilliant, revolutionary triumph in game design if it were followed by the words "A Pathfinder Adventure Path by Paizo."

"Falling down is how you grow.  Staying down is how you die.  It's not what happens to you, it's what you do after it happens.”

Damage that doesn't happen because of resistance is damage that you didn't deal.

There is no difference between damage dealt and damage taken.  They are the same number, period, in all cases.

If you had a circumstance where resistance reduces the damage that would have been dealt to 0, then no damage is dealt, and things that trigger off of damage being dealt do not happen.

Contradicted by the first paragraph on damage, RC 222.

@Red: You mean like they are in the RC? Damage dealt is refered to as what the power deals and then it references things that can reduce damage taken. It uses those terms (dealt vs taken). So your pet peeve is... people reading the rules?
Contradicted by the first paragraph on damage, RC 222.

@Red: You mean like they are in the RC? Damage dealt is refered to as what the power deals and then it references things that can reduce damage taken. It uses those terms (dealt vs taken). So your pet peeve is... people reading the rules?

Nothing in that paragraph contradicts anything Mand said.  The paragraph does not even contain the word "taken," so I don't know what you mean by that.

On which page/s in the RC are the terms "damage dealt" and "damage taken" defined?  Sure, they're both used, but they're not defined by the rules as seperate things.  They're just more or less interchangable ways of saying the same thing and not meant to be taken literally as different game terms.

Regardless, I think you're stretching the bounds of what are defined game terms and what is simply a choice of wording in a rule's details.  Just because the phrase "deals damage" is used in an explanation of damage does not make it a game term.  The same thing with "takes damage."  If they were game terms with seperate meanings, it would be in the glossary.  It'd be the same thing as declaring that "Bob hits the monster," means something different than "The monster is hit by Bob."  I think you're overanalyzing this ... and that's my pet peeve.

OD&D, 1E and 2E challenged the player. 3E challenged the character, not the player. Now 4E takes it a step further by challenging a GROUP OF PLAYERS to work together as a TEAM. That's why I love 4E.

"Your ability to summon a horde of celestial superbeings at will is making my ... BMX skills look a bit redundant."

"People treat their lack of imagination as if it's the measure of what's silly. Which is silly." - Noon

"Keep On The Shadowfell" would be hailed as a brilliant, revolutionary triumph in game design if it were followed by the words "A Pathfinder Adventure Path by Paizo."

"Falling down is how you grow.  Staying down is how you die.  It's not what happens to you, it's what you do after it happens.”

Red and Mand have already stated it, but I'll reiterate a different way.  The only difference between "damage dealt" and "damage taken" is active vs passive voice, i.e., the attacker deals damage and the target takes damage.  There is otherwise no rules difference between the two terms. 

     If a creature is immune to the attack I make, it isn't a case of "I dealt 28 damage and the creature took 0 damage"; instead it is "I dealt and the creature took 0 damage."

  This also avoids the more absurd sounding scenario of hitting a creature that is vulnerable to your attack and saying "The attacker dealt 1 point of damage and the defender took 16."  - instead the damage dealt and taken was 16.

Nothing in that paragraph contradicts anything Mand said.  The paragraph does not even contain the word "taken," so I don't know what you mean by that.

On which page/s in the RC are the terms "damage dealt" and "damage taken" defined?  Sure, they're both used, but they're not defined by the rules as seperate things.  They're just more or less interchangable ways of saying the same thing and not meant to be taken literally as different game terms.

Regardless, I think you're stretching the bounds of what are defined game terms and what is simply a choice of wording in a rule's details.  Just because the phrase "deals damage" is used in an explanation of damage does not make it a game term.  The same thing with "takes damage."  If they were game terms with seperate meanings, it would be in the glossary.  It'd be the same thing as declaring that "Bob hits the monster," means something different than "The monster is hit by Bob."  I think you're overanalyzing this ... and that's my pet peeve.

"Takes more or less damage." RC 222. Reading helps. It is what the rules say. The structure is really clear. The first paragraph says attacks/powers deal damage and the second paragraph has a list of circumstances under which a creature will take more or less damage. Does it say that the initial damage "dealt" is modified? Nope, it says the creature takes more damage. Similar language is used in the resist and vuln sections, again, "takes" is used.
The first paragraph says attacks/powers deal damage and the second paragraph has a list of circumstances under which a creature will take more or less damage. Does it say that the initial damage "dealt" is modified? Nope, it says the creature takes more damage. Similar language is used in the resist and vuln sections, again, "takes" is used.

Yes, similar language is used, but those are not defined game terms, so trying to say that they mean two different things in terms of their effects on game elements is pretty much just making an invalid inference.  I think you're reading too much into the writer's choice of wording.

And by the way, welcome to the Community.

OD&D, 1E and 2E challenged the player. 3E challenged the character, not the player. Now 4E takes it a step further by challenging a GROUP OF PLAYERS to work together as a TEAM. That's why I love 4E.

"Your ability to summon a horde of celestial superbeings at will is making my ... BMX skills look a bit redundant."

"People treat their lack of imagination as if it's the measure of what's silly. Which is silly." - Noon

"Keep On The Shadowfell" would be hailed as a brilliant, revolutionary triumph in game design if it were followed by the words "A Pathfinder Adventure Path by Paizo."

"Falling down is how you grow.  Staying down is how you die.  It's not what happens to you, it's what you do after it happens.”

Red and Mand have already stated it, but I'll reiterate a different way.  The only difference between "damage dealt" and "damage taken" is active vs passive voice, i.e., the attacker deals damage and the target takes damage.  There is otherwise no rules difference between the two terms. 

You should Google the difference between active and passive voice. Both of the constructions you just used are active voice. The subject is doing something (dealing the game, taking the damage). 
(Damage dealt) - (resistance) = (damage taken)

or

(Damage roll+mods) - (resistance) = (damage dealt) = (damage taken)

I'm fairly sure the latter is the case, otherwise quite a few game elements would cease to function.

 
Back to Basics - A Guide to Basic Attacks You might be playing DnD wrong if... "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein
Red and Mand have already stated it, but I'll reiterate a different way.  The only difference between "damage dealt" and "damage taken" is active vs passive voice, i.e., the attacker deals damage and the target takes damage.  There is otherwise no rules difference between the two terms. 

You should Google the difference between active and passive voice. Both of the constructions you just used are active voice. The subject is doing something (dealing the game, taking the damage). The rest of your post is kind of silly with your premise being so flawed.

yeah I realized that when I was thinking about it later - it was late after a long day. You don't have to be a pedantic ass about it. 
 What I should have re-edited to be though is that the only difference between "dealt" and "taken" is the subject of the sentence. There is no in game rules difference between the two terms
I guess we'll have to disagree.  I think since damage dealt and damage taken are not defined game terms, they don't really have any meaning that you can use to determine that they are two different things in the rules.  I think it's just two ways of saying the same thing.

OD&D, 1E and 2E challenged the player. 3E challenged the character, not the player. Now 4E takes it a step further by challenging a GROUP OF PLAYERS to work together as a TEAM. That's why I love 4E.

"Your ability to summon a horde of celestial superbeings at will is making my ... BMX skills look a bit redundant."

"People treat their lack of imagination as if it's the measure of what's silly. Which is silly." - Noon

"Keep On The Shadowfell" would be hailed as a brilliant, revolutionary triumph in game design if it were followed by the words "A Pathfinder Adventure Path by Paizo."

"Falling down is how you grow.  Staying down is how you die.  It's not what happens to you, it's what you do after it happens.”

I've removed content from this thread. Trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct

You can review the Code of Conduct here: company.wizards.com/conduct

Please remember to keep your posts polite, on topic and refrain from personal attacks. You are free to disagree with one another as long as it is done in a respectful manner. 
(Damage dealt) - (resistance) = (damage taken)

or

(Damage roll+mods) - (resistance) = (damage dealt) = (damage taken)

I'm fairly sure the latter is the case, otherwise quite a few game elements would cease to function.

 

Name one.

@Red: No, we can't. You're ignoring what the rules clearly say about damage, in the section of the rules dealing with damage. The words used to describe those rules have some very clear meanings.

@Rising: The premise of your argument depended on language working differently then it actually does. That is worth pointing out. Also, again, the rules say that powers etc "deal" a certain amount of damage and that some creatures who have resist/vuln/immune "take" more or less damage. That isn't two ways of saying the same thing, that is saying two different things.
E.g. Paladin D5 Arc of Vengeance. Effect: The target is subject to your divine sanction until the end of your next turn. If the target was already marked by you, it also takes radiant damage equal to your Wisdom modifier whenever it deals damage to you or any ally (save ends).

Say you have resist 5 all from ring of free time. If a monster does an attack that would inflict 5 damage to you, you take no damage from it due to your resistance.

You're saying that the monster deals damage to you and thus get zapped? If the monster did damage to you, why haven't your hp decreased? Saying that the monster did 5 damage to you and you took 0 is paradoxical. Either the damage effected you it did not. If the damage did not effect you can how can you claim that it dealt damage to you
Back to Basics - A Guide to Basic Attacks You might be playing DnD wrong if... "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein
The premise of your argument depended on language working differently then it actually does. That is worth pointing out.

Also worth pointing out that the premise of your argument depends entirely on language working the way you say it does.  If his argument is weak, yours is at least as weak.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Saying that the monster did 5 damage to you and you took 0 is paradoxical.


What's even more paradoxical is the inverse, that of vulnerability.  Saying the monster did 0 fire damage to you and you took 5 fire damage because of your vulnerability makes no sense, yet it is a direct result of the vulnerability rules as they are currently written if damage taken and damage dealt aren't the same number and zero damage is still damage.

Fortunately, the rules don't work this way.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
We a discussing the meaning of: "If the critical hit deals damage greater than or equal to the target’s bloodied value, the target dies." (PHB p.288, RC p.241). I have no preference either way, but I love a good discussion. 

- Basically, I reckon that the writers never even considered resistances when they wrote that line. Their intent in this instances was likely concerning damage after resistances.  Can the RAW here be read either way? If so, then we typically choose the interpretation that coincides with likely RAI.

- Drunia: Mand12 has some excellent Ruleslawyer credentials, but if you contend that RAW cannot be read multiple ways here, I'm all for encouraging well-researched discussion. Can you provide the RC 222 text you mentioned?

- I'd certainly be interested if WotC has a concrete definition for "deals damage", but I'd speculate that such a definition (either way) could create problems with some powers. Does anyone want to research that?
Of course, my credentials speak for themselves Tongue Out
Back to Basics - A Guide to Basic Attacks You might be playing DnD wrong if... "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein
Some examples of things that start breaking if we say that "damage dealt" and "damage taken" are not the same thing:

Revenant Dark Reaping:
Show


Dark Reaping

You use one death as the seed to sow more destruction.


Encounter      Necrotic
Free Action  


Trigger: A creature within 5 squares of you is reduced to 0 hit points


Effect: One creature of your choice that you hit with an attack before the end of your next turn takes extra necrotic damage equal to 1d8 + your Constitution modifier or Charisma modifier.



Note that is doesn't say you deal damage, it says that the target takes extra damage

Now we have the following feats:

Dark Feasting:
Show


Dark Feasting
Prerequisite: Revenant
Benefit: When you deal damage with your dark reaping, you gain temporary hit points equal to the extra necrotic damage dealt to the target.

Empowered Reaping
Show


Empowered Reaping
Prerequisite: Revenant
Benefit: You gain a +2 feat bonus to the damage dealt by your dark reaping. This bonus increases to +4 at 11th level and +6 at 21st level.


Mind Rot
Show

Mind Rot
Prerequisite: Revenant, dark reaping racial power, psion
Benefit: Your dark reaping racial power deals necrotic and psychic damage. If you reduce the target of your dark reaping to 0 hit points before the end of your next turn, you regain the use of dark reaping and use it immediately.

Chill of the Grave
Show


Chill of the Grave
Heroic Tier
Prerequisite: Revenant
Benefit: Your dark reaping racial power deals cold and necrotic damage.


Death Curse
Show



Death Curse
Heroic Tier
Prerequisite: Con 13, revenant, Warlock’s Curse class feature
Benefit When you deal the additional necrotic damage from your dark reaping racial power to a target under your Warlock’s Curse, all other creatures also under your Warlock’s Curse take necrotic damage equal to your Constitution modifier.


And while I won't paste the text from the following, these feats have the same issue:  Draconic Reaping, Hellfire Soul, Life Thief, Marked for Death, Reaper's Quarry, Spectral Reaping, Grave Dust Assassin, Reaping Vengence, Double Reaping and Reaping Synergy.

 All of the above feats refer to "when you deal damage" or "damage dealt" by Dark Reaping, while Dark Reaping, by your reading of the text deals no damage while the target takes damage.  Which leads to the paradox of a target taking damage from an effect that deals none and would also mean that none of those feats function, at all.

To really throw things for a loop, Scar of the Shadowweave instead says "The damage granted by your dark reaping....." and Dark Invitation says "...when you apply damage from dark reaping to a creature..." and neither of those constructs are used in the RC rules on damage.

Again, the only difference between "deal" and "take" in the context of damage is if the subject of the sentence is the attacker or defender.
Well said.
Back to Basics - A Guide to Basic Attacks You might be playing DnD wrong if... "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein
I will add one point to add for discussion though that I was thinking of in this debate:

 If I make an attack and have multiple effects for Extra damage (say Hunter's Quarry, Horned Helm, Battlecrazed sword, etc) and the target has resistance or another effect that causes the damage from the attack power itself to be 0, is any of the extra damage still dealt to the target?

  Extra damage, by definition, can only be added to an attack that already does some damage.  Most groups play that by just saying you can't add extra damage to an attack that has no damage of its own, but still consider the base attack damage and the extra damage together to be a single damage instance altogeher, otherwise resistance and vulnerability each apply multiple times.

  But if resistance/immunity causes the attack's base damage to be reduced to  0, should that negate the ability to add any extra damage?
   
  My gut feeling is that this would be really overreading into the extra damage rules and would start breaking all kinds of stuff, and no body would play it this way, but I wasn't sure if it had ever been discussed on these forums.
Extra damage is in addition to other damage and factored in as a single instance before the damage taken is reduced.

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

Extra damage is in addition to other damage and factored in as a single instance before the damage taken is reduced.


This.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Extra damage is in addition to other damage and factored in as a single instance before the damage taken is reduced.


This.

That's how I've always interprested it as well. Mostly curious if anyone had ever tried interpreting it the other way, especially when you start considering some of the sources of extra damage that can be applied retroactively like Hunter's Quarry.
that was my understanding as well.

EDIT:  Hunter's Quarry has a built in exception to the rule and functions differently because of it.
"Non nobis Domine Sed nomini tuo da gloriam" "I wish for death not because I want to die, but because I seek the war eternal"

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/19.jpg)

Yeah Hunter's Quarry specifically apply retroactively.

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

As far as I can tell, the RC never explicitly defines the difference between damage dealt and damage taken. The paragraph at the top of page 225 may shed some light on the subject, though (emphasis mine, in bold):

Example: A creature has resist 10 lightning and resist 5 thunder, and an attack deals 15 lightning and thunder damage to it. The creature takes 10 lighting and thunder damage because the resistance to the combined damage types is limited to the lesser of the two (in this case, 5 thunder). If the creature had only resist 10 lightning, it would take all 15 damage from the attack. (RC, pg. 225)



It is clear that there is a difference between damage dealt and damage taken.
I killed Aleena.
Some examples of things that start breaking if we say that "damage dealt" and "damage taken" are not the same thing:

Revenant Dark Reaping:
Show


Dark Reaping

You use one death as the seed to sow more destruction.


Encounter      Necrotic
Free Action  


Trigger: A creature within 5 squares of you is reduced to 0 hit points


Effect: One creature of your choice that you hit with an attack before the end of your next turn takes extra necrotic damage equal to 1d8 + your Constitution modifier or Charisma modifier.



Note that is doesn't say you deal damage, it says that the target takes extra damage

Now we have the following feats:

Dark Feasting:
Show


Dark Feasting
Prerequisite: Revenant
Benefit: When you deal damage with your dark reaping, you gain temporary hit points equal to the extra necrotic damage dealt to the target.

Empowered Reaping
Show


Empowered Reaping
Prerequisite: Revenant
Benefit: You gain a +2 feat bonus to the damage dealt by your dark reaping. This bonus increases to +4 at 11th level and +6 at 21st level.


Mind Rot
Show

Mind Rot
Prerequisite: Revenant, dark reaping racial power, psion
Benefit: Your dark reaping racial power deals necrotic and psychic damage. If you reduce the target of your dark reaping to 0 hit points before the end of your next turn, you regain the use of dark reaping and use it immediately.

Chill of the Grave
Show


Chill of the Grave
Heroic Tier
Prerequisite: Revenant
Benefit: Your dark reaping racial power deals cold and necrotic damage.


Death Curse
Show



Death Curse
Heroic Tier
Prerequisite: Con 13, revenant, Warlock’s Curse class feature
Benefit When you deal the additional necrotic damage from your dark reaping racial power to a target under your Warlock’s Curse, all other creatures also under your Warlock’s Curse take necrotic damage equal to your Constitution modifier.


And while I won't paste the text from the following, these feats have the same issue:  Draconic Reaping, Hellfire Soul, Life Thief, Marked for Death, Reaper's Quarry, Spectral Reaping, Grave Dust Assassin, Reaping Vengence, Double Reaping and Reaping Synergy.

 All of the above feats refer to "when you deal damage" or "damage dealt" by Dark Reaping, while Dark Reaping, by your reading of the text deals no damage while the target takes damage.  Which leads to the paradox of a target taking damage from an effect that deals none and would also mean that none of those feats function, at all.

To really throw things for a loop, Scar of the Shadowweave instead says "The damage granted by your dark reaping....." and Dark Invitation says "...when you apply damage from dark reaping to a creature..." and neither of those constructs are used in the RC rules on damage.

Again, the only difference between "deal" and "take" in the context of damage is if the subject of the sentence is the attacker or defender.

Since Reaping require you add the damage onto another attack, that attack will be dealing damage. Simple enough. Those now all work and your argument is invalid.

So nothing breaks, we're following the rules as literally written, and the only downside is it isn't particularly inuitive in some edge cases. If anyone has another RAI argument they'd like to make I guess they can feel free, but every piece of RAW has been pretty clear there is a difference.

Actually no, RAW does not establish a difference.  For someone so concerned with "absolute nonsense" you should have noticed that.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Actually no, RAW does not establish a difference.  For someone so concerned with "absolute nonsense" you should have noticed that.

Except it does, as quoted multiple times in this thread, in at least three different places in the rules. If you have an actual argument you'd like to present, feel free, but so far all you've done is state an opinion with no basis.
Here is what i found, under Resistance and Immunities:

R
C224 Example: A creature has resist 10 lightning and resist 5 thunder, and an attack deals 15 lightning and thunder damage to it. The creature takes 10 lightning and thunder damage, because the resistance to the combined damage types is limited to the lesser of the two (in this case, 5 thunder). If the creature had only resist 10 lightning, it would take all 15 damage from the attack.
RC225 Immunity: Immunity to one part of a power does not make a creature immune to other parts of the power. For example, when a creature that is immune to thunder is hit by a power that both d
eals thunder damage and pushes the target, the creature takes no damage, but the power can still push it.
 

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

Yes, you can excerpt out "deals" and "takes" but you completely remove the context when you do that.  The context is important, and those quotes do not establish a difference.  In the immunity section, the power does not lose the Thunder keyword when it is used on a Thunder-immune target, and "deals" in this context is a keyword-related thing, not relating to the numerical damage quantity.  For the resistance example, again, the word "deals" is talking about the power in the absence of an actual target.  The choice of whether deals or takes is only done in relation to which entity they're talking about, not to establish a distinction between "deals" and "takes" as terms.

If you want to ignore the whole of the rule and its context, and go just by the presence or absence of an individual word in the rule, then yeah, I can see how you can make the claim. 

But it's still wrong.



One question, because I'm curious:  is that you, Alcestis?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Since Reaping require you add the damage onto another attack, that attack will be dealing damage. Simple enough. Those now all work and your argument is invalid.

So nothing breaks, we're following the rules as literally written, and the only downside is it isn't particularly inuitive in some edge cases. If anyone has another RAI argument they'd like to make I guess they can feel free, but every piece of RAW has been pretty clear there is a difference.




Read again, Dark Reaping does not add any damage to the attack, it only makes the creature take extra damage. Actually that's a perfect way of putting it - if it is a possible for a creature to take extra damage and extra damage is only defined in ways that it can be dealt (RC223), that must mean that dealing damage and taking damage are the same.
Back to Basics - A Guide to Basic Attacks You might be playing DnD wrong if... "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein
Mand, what about this:

an attack 
deals 15 lightning and thunder damage to it. The creature takes 10 lightning and thunder damage
 

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter