|
6 months ago ::
Jan 15, 2013 - 2:42PM
#21
|
Date Joined:
May 12, 2009
|
The extra damage doesn't have to interrupt since its in addition to the attack's damage anyway
This is exactly why it must be an interrupt.
To illustrate, I ask you this:
I use Melee Basic Attack.
I hit.
I roll MBA's damage: 10.
I use Takedown Strike, which for me is 5 extra damage.
The target has Resist 5 All.
How many hitpoints does the target lose?
If you say 10, then Takedown Strike must be an interrupt. If you say Takedown Strike is a reaction, then you must say 5.
The target takes 10 damage because it takes 15 damage and has Resist 5 All. Wether its a Reaction doesn't change anything since extra damage is in addition to an attack's damage, which can only be resisted once. Wether the instance of extra damage is applied immediatly after or later on your turn as demonstrated with Hunter's Quarry or Chain of Levistus, what matters is that extra damage is in addition to the damage roll, always. That's why extra damage never get damage bonuses added to them.
I even showed you multiple exemples of extra damage applied as an Immediate Reaction, what more do you need ?
Yan
Montréal, Canada
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 15, 2013 - 3:34PM
#22
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
Examples of exceptions do not change the rule. And the general rule is that extra damage must be included in the resolution of the base damage, which means the resolution of the effect that adds the extra damage must be resolved before the base damage, which means interrupt.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 15, 2013 - 4:02PM
#23
|
Date Joined:
May 12, 2009
|
Not it doesn't mean that. Its in addition to them so it will add anyway. Wether its immedietly or moment later doesn't matter, extra damage is always in addition to other damage, this regardless of timing.
Since no general rule say extra damage must be resolved before the base damage, it means extra damage power don't need to interrupt in order to function and thus work as reaction unless noted otherwise.
Yan
Montréal, Canada
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 15, 2013 - 5:39PM
#24
|
Date Joined:
Mar 28, 2010
|
Am I the only one surprised that this is a game element that could even come into question, all things considered ? I mean... This is CharOP, shouldn't we know the answer to this without a single doubt ?
"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"
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 15, 2013 - 6:57PM
#25
|
Date Joined:
Oct 23, 2011
|
Am I the only one surprised that this is a game element that could even come into question, all things considered ? I mean... This is CharOP, shouldn't we know the answer to this without a single doubt ?
CharOp does. People whose basic contribution to the forum is copying/pasting text from the Compendium without understanding the rules? Not so much.
|
|
|
