|
1 year ago ::
May 02, 2012 - 3:30PM
#271
|
Date Joined:
Nov 23, 2003
|
No. The 1d10 is a damage roll. That is the point. And it does damage as part of the power it is being added to. Modifiers to damage rolls apply to the whole roll, and the roll is all a single roll no matter how many dice are rolled.
Er?
If the damage roll IS from the 1d10, then why don't enhancement bonuses apply, right then? After all, I get a bonus to damage rolls, and you're saying that's a damage roll. By even plainer english than the rest of this debate: if that's a damage roll, then I get a bonus to it.
I'm not seeing how in one context it is a part of a single damage roll, and in another context it is a damage roll.
"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
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 02, 2012 - 3:30PM
#272
|
|
|
It is a damage roll that is part of a power, because extra damage is part of the power. As noted. It does you no service to intentionally misread not only the rules but the argument so you can pretend to be right. ^.^
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 02, 2012 - 3:33PM
#273
|
|
|
There is also that portion of the LFR rules which lists primary sources for rules and nowhere is "arbitrary DM fiat" on the list.
Ok, how about:
"Whenever there is any contradiction or confusion about a rule, the table DM is the final arbiter, although the DM should always refer to the most current official rules when possible." It's from page 15 of the LFR Campaign Guide. They even bolded it for easy reading.
I'm not suggesting that LFR DMs should be sitting there inventing new status effects creating new character classes, but they do, in fact, have wide discretion to make sure that players at the table have a good time.
Some of the interpretations of RAW that get bandied about on this board seem like they're contrived to make sure that nobody does.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 02, 2012 - 3:34PM
#274
|
|
|
No. The 1d10 is a damage roll. That is the point. And it does damage as part of the power it is being added to. Modifiers to damage rolls apply to the whole roll, and the roll is all a single roll no matter how many dice are rolled.
Er?
If the damage roll IS from the 1d10, then why don't enhancement bonuses apply, right then? After all, I get a bonus to damage rolls, and you're saying that's a damage roll. By even plainer english than the rest of this debate: if that's a damage roll, then I get a bonus to it.
I'm not seeing how in one context it is a part of a single damage roll, and in another context it is a damage roll.
They do apply. You've added a damage roll to the power, the power has the weapon and/or implement keyword, when you roll damage you do it all at once, and all the damage is part of the power (including the rolled damage, which is a damage roll). The key part here is the roll isn't separate from the power. Extra damage is done by the power, at the same time, and you roll it out and add it up all at the same time.
@CahPahkah: It isn't "rules-abusive" to play by the rules, sorry. And LFR DMs still aren't allowed to arbitrarily change the rules.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 02, 2012 - 3:36PM
#275
|
|
|
Its at the point where this no longer makes sense.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 02, 2012 - 3:36PM
#276
|
|
|
Ok, how about:
"Whenever there is any contradiction or confusion about a rule, the table DM is the final arbiter, although the DM should always refer to the most current official rules when possible." It's from page 15 of the LFR Campaign Guide. They even bolded it for easy reading.
I'm not suggesting that LFR DMs should be sitting there inventing new status effects creating new character classes, but they do, in fact, have wide discretion to make sure that players at the table have a good time.
Some of the interpretations of RAW that get bandied about on this board seem like they're contrived to make sure that nobody does.
Oh good, there is no contradiction here (not in the actual rules, in any case, made up rules don't count) so you agree.
A board that cares primarily about RAW tries to make sure that people are actually reading RAW correctly? Surely you jest.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 02, 2012 - 3:38PM
#277
|
|
|
It isn't "rules-abusive" to play by the rules, sorry. And LFR DMs still aren't allowed to arbitrarily change the rules.
Again, you skipped: "Whenever there is any contradiction or confusion about a rule, the table DM is the final arbiter, although the DM should always refer to the most current official rules when possible."
"The table DM is the final arbiter."...
Sorry if that seems arbitrary to you. Those are the rules.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 02, 2012 - 3:44PM
#278
|
Date Joined:
Aug 17, 2007
|
I agree that an LFR judge should be able to run by the rules, RAW if you will, when desired by the table. As such I do, for any table (note table != player) that wants me to.* At the same time I will also happily leverage the "debateable" nature of the RAW if that is better for the play experience. While I am unlikely to flat out disallow something that is unclear by RAW it is good to have the option even when honestly it is rarely needed. It is usually easy enough to work out amongst the people at the table. Some of the things I DM in organized play are even stricter on running per RAW than LFR. There is no table choice involved at all. Part of why I read these debates is simply to be very very up on the current RAW consensus and running arguments. I need to be to do a good job and I take that seriously (yes, I do take things seriously now and then). An important thing to remember though is that in LFR the judge is not required to run by YOUR version of the RAW. Just because you are convinced what the RAW means in a given situation does not mean everyone is or even should be. While I can certainly understand the temptation in declaring everyone that does not share your interpretation wrong and likely ignorant, it might be wise to start allowing for the possibility that sometimes, as unlikely as it seems, people that disagree are NOT idiots. But one is of course also free to think me a fool  Either way, if you feel strongly about it, LFR judges and the limitations of RAW would make an excelent topic on its own on the LFR forums. *-Having an entire table of RAW interpretation (ab)using PC's can be awesome. Watching those monsters drop left and right while working hard as a DM to find some way to challenge the players. Can be good times.
To DME, or not to DME: that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous powergaming, Or to take arms against a sea of Munchkins, And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;No more;
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 02, 2012 - 3:50PM
#279
|
Date Joined:
Nov 23, 2003
|
I'm just trying to make sure I understand the edges, implications, and results of the argument. I'm not intentionally misreading anything: I'm stopping at the point of confusion so that I make sure that the entire path is as iron clad as possible. I'm trying to figure out how to come up with close-ended questions to attempt to explore the space to understand you argument, but having problems doing so. If it is its own damage roll, then you get the "enhancement once per XdY text" reading, and "Raging Tempest" is the best 1st level power evar. . And I think we can end the conversation, because I think I understand the argument and have no obvious rebuttal beyond the implicit proof-by-negation. If it's not it's own damage roll for the purposes of the definition of "Damage Roll", then there's still space to continue exploring: Take "Radiant One" and a Tiefling with the "+1 to hit with fire powers" thingy. Radiant One adds extra fire damage when you do damage. Does that make the power a fire power? If you hit, certainly, you hit with a fire power. But was it a fire power when you attacked? I honestly don't know. (Personally, I think the rules don't say). There's an implicit timing problem that's reminding me of a beginner's introduction to quantum mechanics. (Era probably has a hard-and-fast answer here: I don't) I bring this up because it's sort of related to how the "two phase adding extra damage" model might work: you add your rolled damage to your BB hit: and now it's a damage roll. Now that it's a damage roll, you add your other bonus damage. yes, there's not a strict ordering here and there's some weird recursion, but that's not the only place that sort of thing happens: it happens on a tiefling Radiant One who's getting +1 to hit. It happens when a Avenger/Morninglord uses Painful Oath to hit with a Radiant Power, and thus cause a Radiant Vulnerability. They do apply. You've added a damage roll to the power, the power has the weapon and/or implement keyword, when you roll damage you do it all at once, and all the damage is part of the power (including the rolled damage, which is a damage roll). The key part here is the roll isn't separate from the power. Extra damage is done by the power, at the same time, and you roll it out and add it up all at the same time.
Ok. So the argument is that there are two or three damage rolls that are all combined into one damage roll?
Gah. I'm gonna hafta come back to this later. It's not fitting in my brain right now, and work's actually expecting me to work.
"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
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 02, 2012 - 3:51PM
#280
|
Date Joined:
Feb 20, 2012
|
It is a damage roll that is part of a power
No it isn't. It's a damage roll that is part of an effect, whose result is added on to a power.
because extra damage is part of the power.
Extra damage is added on to the power's damage. It is not part of the power's expression, or it would not be "extra".
According to the rules compendium, extra damage is granted by "powers and other effects" and dealt "in addition to other damage" It is nowhere indicated that it then becomes a part of the power's damage expression, and when an example is given, it's clearly specified that the cleric has "an ability that causes her to deal 5 extra radiant damage", as opposed to "an ability that alters her attack powers to deal 5 extra radiant damage".
You want RAW? You've got RAW right there. You are not speaking from RAW. You are not speaking from an objective view of the rules. Your stance is based in subjective inference, cannot be found expressed in the books, and is warped to fit your desired conclusion.
It does you no service to intentionally misread not only the rules but the argument so you can pretend to be right. ^.^
Well, I'm glad we can both at least agree that calling our opponents liars is the key to a productive discussion.
|
|
|
