Community

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 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.

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.

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.