|
2 months ago ::
Mar 15, 2013 - 8:20AM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Mar 16, 2009
|
Hey Everyone
My searches aren't providing clarification, so I turn to you for your wisdom.
The Battlecrazed Weapon property reads:
"While you are bloodied, you deal +2d6 damage when you hit with this weapon."
It doesn't say that it's Extra Damage so I get to apply all my modifiers to the damage roll, correct?
Cheers
|
|
|
|
2 months ago ::
Mar 15, 2013 - 9:32AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Mar 28, 2010
|
the +1 version of the weapon gives +1d6. As the weapon gets more powerful the d6's increase. The damage from battlecrazed is always extra damage. It is not a seperate damage instance.
"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"
|
|
|
|
2 months ago ::
Mar 15, 2013 - 9:49AM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Mar 16, 2009
|
The damage from battlecrazed is always extra damage. It is not a seperate damage instance.
Even though it isn't specified? All other extra damage instances are noted as such in their description.
|
|
|
|
2 months ago ::
Mar 15, 2013 - 10:17AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Mar 28, 2010
|
not true. As the edition grew, the people who wrote these things changed. So the language used in the powers, items, features, etc also changed. Extra, additional, added, more, +. These are just the ones I can recall without looking at the content. The language changed but they expected everyone to follow along and understand that some things meant the same thing and others did not. This left us with quite the mess to sort. However it's agreed that the battlecrazed damage is not a seperate instance of damage. I believe this is because it says +1dx damage. You would do [w]+mods+1dx , not [w]+mods and 1dx+mods
"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"
|
|
|
|
2 months ago ::
Mar 15, 2013 - 11:49AM
#5
|
|
|
That is a RAI argument though. RAW if something doesn't say it is extra damage, it isn't. So he is correct that it is its own damage roll.
But since it is an untyped damage roll with no keywords, it also gets zero bonuses.... net result: you have to deal with Resist All twice, effectively lowering your damage in some cases and raising it in basically zero.
|
|
|
|
2 months ago ::
Mar 15, 2013 - 1:47PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Mar 16, 2009
|
I was hoping you would comment on this Alcestis.
Obviously the item needs errata. In the meantime, how would you rule it? I'm thinking of going the RAI route.
|
|
|
|
2 months ago ::
Mar 15, 2013 - 2:16PM
#7
|
|
|
I think Alcestis' point is that either way you rule it, you don't get to add your modifiers to the damage. So the question itself is moot.
|
|
|
|
2 months ago ::
Mar 15, 2013 - 2:42PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Mar 16, 2009
|
Except for that part where RAW it's a separate untyped damage instance that has to defeat Resist All should that situation arise.
|
|
|
|
2 months ago ::
Mar 15, 2013 - 2:57PM
#9
|
|
|
I was hoping you would comment on this Alcestis.
Obviously the item needs errata. In the meantime, how would you rule it? I'm thinking of going the RAI route.
Just rule it as extra damage, not worth the headache and, in fairness, that is/was a common way to indicate extra damage. Lazy editors are lazy.
|
|
|
|
2 months ago ::
Mar 15, 2013 - 4:47PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Mar 28, 2010
|
I was hoping you would comment on this Alcestis.
Obviously the item needs errata. In the meantime, how would you rule it? I'm thinking of going the RAI route.
Just rule it as extra damage, not worth the headache and, in fairness, that is/was a common way to indicate extra damage. Lazy editors are lazy.
Total agreement.
"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"
|
|
|
