Only the initial damage. The other damage is set up by the attack, but not triggered by it (it’s triggered on the movement of the target) so it doesn’t count in crits
generally if any action or effect occurs between an attack and subsequent damage, that damage isn’t considered part of the attack, and so would also be ineligible for doubling on a crit
It will double the weapon dice and thunder damage of the initial hit. Damage from moving will be normal.
Crits basically only double the very next roll after the crit. Not damage that happens later, after a save, or from some other source (triggered by the attack).
Everyone is saying that the damage triggered by movement doesn't double on a crit, but I believe the rules say otherwise.
From page 194 of the Player's Handbook:
"If the d20 roll for an attack is a 20, the attack hits regardless of any modifiers or the target’s AC. In addition, the attack is a critical hit, as explained later in this chapter."
From page 196 of the Player's Handbook:
"When you score a critical hit, you get to roll extra dice for the attack's damage against the target. Roll all of the attack's damage dice twice and add then together. Then add any relevant modifiers as normal."
We can gather from this that any damage die you roll due to hitting an enemy with a natural 20 on ur spell attack is doubled.
Booming Blade reads:
"You brandish the weapon used in the spell’s casting and make a melee attack with it against one creature within 5 feet of you. On a hit, the target suffers the weapon attack’s normal effects and then becomes sheathed in booming energy until the start of your next turn. If the target willingly moves 5 feet or more before then, the target takes 1d8 thunder damage, and the spell ends."
The spell attack that you crit with is causing that secondary damage and the spell clearly hasn't ended and is thus still using that crit role.
RAW is see no reason why that damage can't be doubled.
Everyone is saying that the damage triggered by movement doesn't double on a crit, but I believe the rules say otherwise.
From page 194 of the Player's Handbook:
"If the d20 roll for an attack is a 20, the attack hits regardless of any modifiers or the target’s AC. In addition, the attack is a critical hit, as explained later in this chapter."
From page 196 of the Player's Handbook:
"When you score a critical hit, you get to roll extra dice for the attack's damage against the target. Roll all of the attack's damage dice twice and add then together. Then add any relevant modifiers as normal."
We can gather from this that any damage die you roll due to hitting an enemy with a natural 20 on ur spell attack is doubled.
Booming Blade reads:
"You brandish the weapon used in the spell’s casting and make a melee attack with it against one creature within 5 feet of you. On a hit, the target suffers the weapon attack’s normal effects and then becomes sheathed in booming energy until the start of your next turn. If the target willingly moves 5 feet or more before then, the target takes 1d8 thunder damage, and the spell ends."
The spell attack that you crit with is causing that secondary damage and the spell clearly hasn't ended and is thus still using that crit role.
RAW is see no reason why that damage can't be doubled.
Here is something to consider: A player coats their weapon with Purple Worm Poison. Then they attack an enemy and land a critical hit. The enemy then makes a Con save against them poison and fails. Is the damage from the poison doubled as well? What if they succeeded the saving throw, would that change your answer?
Everyone is saying that the damage triggered by movement doesn't double on a crit, but I believe the rules say otherwise.
From page 194 of the Player's Handbook:
"If the d20 roll for an attack is a 20, the attack hits regardless of any modifiers or the target’s AC. In addition, the attack is a critical hit, as explained later in this chapter."
From page 196 of the Player's Handbook:
"When you score a critical hit, you get to roll extra dice for the attack's damage against the target. Roll all of the attack's damage dice twice and add then together. Then add any relevant modifiers as normal."
We can gather from this that any damage die you roll due to hitting an enemy with a natural 20 on ur spell attack is doubled.
Booming Blade reads:
"You brandish the weapon used in the spell’s casting and make a melee attack with it against one creature within 5 feet of you. On a hit, the target suffers the weapon attack’s normal effects and then becomes sheathed in booming energy until the start of your next turn. If the target willingly moves 5 feet or more before then, the target takes 1d8 thunder damage, and the spell ends."
The spell attack that you crit with is causing that secondary damage and the spell clearly hasn't ended and is thus still using that crit role.
RAW is see no reason why that damage can't be doubled.
The extra damage is not part of the initial attack, it's caused by the spell if the triggering condition(the target willingly moves) occurs. It doesn't get doubled.
The spell attack that you crit with is causing that secondary damage and the spell clearly hasn't ended and is thus still using that crit role.
The spell's effect hasn't ended, but the attack (which scored the critical hit) has; once you've resolved all immediate effects for the attack (damage etc.) the attack has ended, and you can now move on to using your movement, taking a bonus action, go to the next turn etc.
The secondary booming blade damage occurs after you have resolved your attack, usually in another turn entirely.
Here is something to consider: A player coats their weapon with Purple Worm Poison. Then they attack an enemy and land a critical hit. The enemy then makes a Con save against them poison and fails. Is the damage from the poison doubled as well? What if they succeeded the saving throw, would that change your answer?
This case is actually debatable; the extra poison damage is an immediate special effect triggered during the attack, so you can argue it either way. This is because the Making an Attack rules include this in step 3:
3. Resolve the attack. You make the attack roll. On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage.
So any "special effects in addition to or instead of damage" (which the poison arguably is) is part of resolving the attack. Meanwhile the section on resolving Critical Hits states:
If the attack involves other damage dice, such as from the rogue's Sneak Attack feature, you roll those dice twice as well.
Again the "other damage dice" arguably includes the poison damage dice since they're an immediate effect resolved during the attack.
At worst it's up to your DM; but since the rules don't tell us to resolve them as a separate step, and since step 3 of Making an Attack arguably includes it, then I'd lean in favour of critical hits extending to such immediate "special effects" regardless of how they're obtained. But it's hardly an unambiguous ruling either, the lack of separation is the crux for me.
This same logic also applies to a Rogue's Uncanny Dodge and anything else that can reduce the damage of "an attack", so it's important to choose which way your group is going to rule and then be consistent. Personally I think double everything makes sense (e.g- delivered more of the poison) but there are ways to spin the narrative explanations either way.
RAW is see no reason why that damage can't be doubled.
The reason why is because a crit double the attack's damage and Booming Blade's effect dealing damage to the target for moving is not the attack's damage.
Firstly I appreciate everyone's take on this and you all make reasonable arguments. Also I'm new to this platform for I apologize if my quotations are clanky.
The extra damage is not part of the initial attack, it's caused by the spell if the triggering condition(the target willingly moves) occurs. It doesn't get doubled.
Nowhere in the PHB does it mention initial attack damage. It states "you get to roll extra dice for the attack's damage against the target." I think we can agree that the secondary damage is damage from an attack. Sure it is reliant on another factor, but the damage is still caused by the attack.
The spell attack that you crit with is causing that secondary damage and the spell clearly hasn't ended and is thus still using that crit role.
The spell's effect hasn't ended, but the attack (which scored the critical hit) has; once you've resolved all immediate effects for the attack (damage etc.) the attack has ended, and you can now move on to using your movement, taking a bonus action, go to the next turn etc.
The secondary booming blade damage occurs after you have resolved your attack, usually in another turn entirely.
I agree the attack has ended, but that secondary damage is still being dealt by that attack. I get that recurring damage shouldn't be doubled from a balancing standpoint, but the duration is so short and it can only trigger once, so balancing issues aren't a huge deal here. Again a sound argument that the attack is over can be made but the PHB says double dice dealt by the attack and the secondary damage would fit that description.
As for the poison, I believe that any poison damage dealt immediately with the attack would be doubled and that was well explained.
The reason why is because a crit double the attack's damage and Booming Blade's effect dealing damage to the target for moving is not the attack's damage.
That is just wrong. The secondary damage is the attack's damage. The attack is dealing this damage, people don't just explode with lightning for moving.
I'd love to hear more interpretations for this rule. I know that it's ultimately up to the dm, but the discourse here so far has been great.
I would say that any damage that is rolled as part of the action at the time of the attack is subject to critical doubling. Damage that is rolled later in the encounter would not be.
The reason why is because a crit double the attack's damage and Booming Blade's effect dealing damage to the target for moving is not the attack's damage.
That is just wrong. The secondary damage is the attack's damage. The attack is dealing this damage, people don't just explode with lightning for moving.
@quadhund If you critically hit with the attack part of Green Flame Blade, and are greater than level 5, do you roll extra dmg against the 2nd target?
@JeremyECrawford The splash damage of green-flame blade isn't affected by the attack critting. Think of the attack as process X & the splash damage as Y
You brandish the weapon used in the spell’s casting and make a melee attack with it against one creature within 5 feet of you. On a hit, the target suffers the weapon attack’s normal effects and then becomes sheathed in booming energy until the start of your next turn. If the target willingly moves 5 feet or more before then, the target takes 1d8 thunder damage, and the spell ends.
The bolded part here is part of the spell's effect, not the attack's damage. It is not subject to a critical hit, because there is no attack roll involved for this effect.
This spell’s damage increases when you reach certain levels. At 5th level, the melee attack deals an extra 1d8 thunder damage to the target on a hit, and the damage the target takes for moving increases to 2d8. Both damage rolls increase by 1d8 at 11th level (2d8 and 3d8) and again at 17th level (3d8 and 4d8).
The bolded part here is explicitly extra damage on attack as it a) requires the attack to hit and b) calls it out as extra damage on the attack.
@quadhund If you critically hit with the attack part of Green Flame Blade, and are greater than level 5, do you roll extra dmg against the 2nd target?
@JeremyECrawford The splash damage of green-flame blade isn't affected by the attack critting. Think of the attack as process X & the splash damage as Y
While I do agree with your overall premise, I don't think this is a good example to use because the splash damage isn't rolled at all and a critical hit only doubles rolled damage.
While I do agree with your overall premise, I don't think this is a good example to use because the splash damage isn't rolled at all and a critical hit only doubles rolled damage.
Yes it's rolled, at level 5. See Higher Level spellcasting.
I think the argument being made about INITIAL attacks is RAI, but if we're sticking to RAW as Fangeye was, then yes I don't see any indication that there's an expiration date on damage from the attack or whether it's just immediate damage or any damage caused by the attack.
RAW it does work, and as a DM I might even run with it, since it's only an extra 10 damage (on average), and it has the extra "move on their turn" qualifier that is easily avoidable, so it doesn't seem to effect game balance greatly while still letting the player feel badass if the stars do align and all the damage IS doubled.
Again, I think RAI is probably just the damage from the attack, but I also don't think sticking to RAW is necessarily a horrible no good very bad thing.
You brandish the weapon used in the spell’s casting and make a melee attack with it against one creature within 5 feet of you. On a hit, the target suffers the weapon attack’s normal effects and then becomes sheathed in booming energy until the start of your next turn. If the target willingly moves 5 feet or more before then, the target takes 1d8 thunder damage, and the spell ends.
The bolded part here is part of the spell's effect, not the attack's damage. It is not subject to a critical hit, because there is no attack roll involved for this effect.
This spell’s damage increases when you reach certain levels. At 5th level, the melee attack deals an extra 1d8 thunder damage to the target on a hit, and the damage the target takes for moving increases to 2d8. Both damage rolls increase by 1d8 at 11th level (2d8 and 3d8) and again at 17th level (3d8 and 4d8).
The bolded part here is explicitly extra damage on attack as it a) requires the attack to hit and b) calls it out as extra damage on the attack.
Spell effect and damage aren't mutually exclusive. The effect of many spell attacks is damage. The secondary damage a)requires the attack to hit and b) does extra damage. It literally says "This spell’s damage increases" in reference to both.
I've seen the crawford thing before and that's not related to booming blade. You're not even making an attack role on GFB secondary target, so how could you hit that target critically. So that makes perfect sense and follow RAW as there was no 20 rolled on that second target to cause the hit to deal critical damage.
As for BB, you role a 20 and the attack causes to waves of damage, all it says in the rules is that damage caused by attack where a 20 was rolled is doubled. Both waves of damage were dependent on that attack role to hit. Requiring movement doesn't change the fact that the damage originated from an attack where a 20 was rolled.
I'm wrong in my above post. The rolled damage from GFB should be doubled according to RAW as it originated from a 20. Crawford elaborated on that specific spell and this makes sense that the damage wouldn't be critical on the target that was not rolled against.
They don't allow you to actually because it's not the target of the attack. But BB would still RAW.
From page 196 of the Player's Handbook:
"When you score a critical hit, you get to roll extra dice for the attack's damage against the target. Roll all of the attack's damage dice twice and add then together. Then add any relevant modifiers as normal."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Is the 2ndary damage caused by Booming Blade doubled on a critical as well or only the initial damage?
Only the initial damage. The other damage is set up by the attack, but not triggered by it (it’s triggered on the movement of the target) so it doesn’t count in crits
generally if any action or effect occurs between an attack and subsequent damage, that damage isn’t considered part of the attack, and so would also be ineligible for doubling on a crit
It will double the weapon dice and thunder damage of the initial hit. Damage from moving will be normal.
Crits basically only double the very next roll after the crit. Not damage that happens later, after a save, or from some other source (triggered by the attack).
Everyone is saying that the damage triggered by movement doesn't double on a crit, but I believe the rules say otherwise.
From page 194 of the Player's Handbook:
"If the d20 roll for an attack is a 20, the attack hits regardless of any modifiers or the target’s AC. In addition, the attack is a critical hit, as explained later in this chapter."
From page 196 of the Player's Handbook:
"When you score a critical hit, you get to roll extra dice for the attack's damage against the target. Roll all of the attack's damage dice twice and add then together. Then add any relevant modifiers as normal."
We can gather from this that any damage die you roll due to hitting an enemy with a natural 20 on ur spell attack is doubled.
Booming Blade reads:
"You brandish the weapon used in the spell’s casting and make a melee attack with it against one creature within 5 feet of you. On a hit, the target suffers the weapon attack’s normal effects and then becomes sheathed in booming energy until the start of your next turn. If the target willingly moves 5 feet or more before then, the target takes 1d8 thunder damage, and the spell ends."
The spell attack that you crit with is causing that secondary damage and the spell clearly hasn't ended and is thus still using that crit role.
RAW is see no reason why that damage can't be doubled.
Here is something to consider: A player coats their weapon with Purple Worm Poison. Then they attack an enemy and land a critical hit. The enemy then makes a Con save against them poison and fails. Is the damage from the poison doubled as well? What if they succeeded the saving throw, would that change your answer?
The extra damage is not part of the initial attack, it's caused by the spell if the triggering condition(the target willingly moves) occurs. It doesn't get doubled.
The spell's effect hasn't ended, but the attack (which scored the critical hit) has; once you've resolved all immediate effects for the attack (damage etc.) the attack has ended, and you can now move on to using your movement, taking a bonus action, go to the next turn etc.
The secondary booming blade damage occurs after you have resolved your attack, usually in another turn entirely.
This case is actually debatable; the extra poison damage is an immediate special effect triggered during the attack, so you can argue it either way. This is because the Making an Attack rules include this in step 3:
So any "special effects in addition to or instead of damage" (which the poison arguably is) is part of resolving the attack. Meanwhile the section on resolving Critical Hits states:
Again the "other damage dice" arguably includes the poison damage dice since they're an immediate effect resolved during the attack.
At worst it's up to your DM; but since the rules don't tell us to resolve them as a separate step, and since step 3 of Making an Attack arguably includes it, then I'd lean in favour of critical hits extending to such immediate "special effects" regardless of how they're obtained. But it's hardly an unambiguous ruling either, the lack of separation is the crux for me.
This same logic also applies to a Rogue's Uncanny Dodge and anything else that can reduce the damage of "an attack", so it's important to choose which way your group is going to rule and then be consistent. Personally I think double everything makes sense (e.g- delivered more of the poison) but there are ways to spin the narrative explanations either way.
Characters: Bullette, Chortle, Dracarys Noir, Edward Merryspell, Habard Ashery, Legion, Peregrine
My Homebrew: Feats | Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Races
Guides: Creating Sub-Races Using Trait Options
WIP (feedback needed): Blood Mage, Chromatic Sorcerers, Summoner, Trickster Domain, Unlucky, Way of the Daoist (Drunken Master), Weapon Smith
Please don't reply to my posts unless you've read what they actually say.
The reason why is because a crit double the attack's damage and Booming Blade's effect dealing damage to the target for moving is not the attack's damage.
Firstly I appreciate everyone's take on this and you all make reasonable arguments. Also I'm new to this platform for I apologize if my quotations are clanky.
Nowhere in the PHB does it mention initial attack damage. It states "you get to roll extra dice for the attack's damage against the target." I think we can agree that the secondary damage is damage from an attack. Sure it is reliant on another factor, but the damage is still caused by the attack.
I agree the attack has ended, but that secondary damage is still being dealt by that attack. I get that recurring damage shouldn't be doubled from a balancing standpoint, but the duration is so short and it can only trigger once, so balancing issues aren't a huge deal here. Again a sound argument that the attack is over can be made but the PHB says double dice dealt by the attack and the secondary damage would fit that description.
As for the poison, I believe that any poison damage dealt immediately with the attack would be doubled and that was well explained.
Finally I don't want to sound mean, but
That is just wrong. The secondary damage is the attack's damage. The attack is dealing this damage, people don't just explode with lightning for moving.
I'd love to hear more interpretations for this rule. I know that it's ultimately up to the dm, but the discourse here so far has been great.
I would say that any damage that is rolled as part of the action at the time of the attack is subject to critical doubling. Damage that is rolled later in the encounter would not be.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
No it's not, it's part of a different process, as explained by the Dev for a similar spell; https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/854034196511117312?s=20&t=TWzRmOobfZn2Jmoknmb4Mg
The bolded part here is part of the spell's effect, not the attack's damage. It is not subject to a critical hit, because there is no attack roll involved for this effect.
The bolded part here is explicitly extra damage on attack as it a) requires the attack to hit and b) calls it out as extra damage on the attack.
While I do agree with your overall premise, I don't think this is a good example to use because the splash damage isn't rolled at all and a critical hit only doubles rolled damage.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Yes it's rolled, at level 5. See Higher Level spellcasting.
Well, how about that. As I say, I do agree with your premise.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I think the argument being made about INITIAL attacks is RAI, but if we're sticking to RAW as Fangeye was, then yes I don't see any indication that there's an expiration date on damage from the attack or whether it's just immediate damage or any damage caused by the attack.
RAW it does work, and as a DM I might even run with it, since it's only an extra 10 damage (on average), and it has the extra "move on their turn" qualifier that is easily avoidable, so it doesn't seem to effect game balance greatly while still letting the player feel badass if the stars do align and all the damage IS doubled.
Again, I think RAI is probably just the damage from the attack, but I also don't think sticking to RAW is necessarily a horrible no good very bad thing.
Spell effect and damage aren't mutually exclusive. The effect of many spell attacks is damage. The secondary damage a)requires the attack to hit and b) does extra damage. It literally says "This spell’s damage increases" in reference to both.
I've seen the crawford thing before and that's not related to booming blade. You're not even making an attack role on GFB secondary target, so how could you hit that target critically. So that makes perfect sense and follow RAW as there was no 20 rolled on that second target to cause the hit to deal critical damage.
As for BB, you role a 20 and the attack causes to waves of damage, all it says in the rules is that damage caused by attack where a 20 was rolled is doubled. Both waves of damage were dependent on that attack role to hit. Requiring movement doesn't change the fact that the damage originated from an attack where a 20 was rolled.
I'm wrong in my above post. The rolled damage from GFB should be doubled according to RAW as it originated from a 20. Crawford elaborated on that specific spell and this makes sense that the damage wouldn't be critical on the target that was not rolled against.
In the case of GFB, I don’t see how the rules allow you to do critical damage against a creature you didn’t attack.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
They don't allow you to actually because it's not the target of the attack. But BB would still RAW.
From page 196 of the Player's Handbook:
"When you score a critical hit, you get to roll extra dice for the attack's damage against the target. Roll all of the attack's damage dice twice and add then together. Then add any relevant modifiers as normal."