Only the attack's damage would be halved, not the poison damage resulting from a saving throw failure as explained in Sage Advice official ruling ;
Does Uncanny Dodge work automatically against every attack a rogue or ranger gets hit by?Spell attacks too? A use of Uncanny Dodge works against only one attack, since it expends your reaction, and only if you can see the attacker. It works against attacks of all sorts, including spell attacks, but it is no help against a spell or other effect, such as fireball, that delivers its damage after a saving throw rather than after an attack roll.
Unfortunately this Sage Advice doesn't really answer the question as it tells us nothing about secondary effects.
The fireball example works because a fireball only delivers damage as a result of a saving throw, there is no attack roll involved at any stage of resolving it.
It does answer the question by saying It it is no help against effect that delivers its damage after a saving throwl, which is what the spider bite does.
What it doesn't say it that it only work for save effect that aren't delivered after an attack roll.
That particular SAC entry applies to an effect, such as fireball, that delivers its damage after a saving throw rather than after an attack roll. In this case, the poison damage is delivered after both an attack roll and a saving throw as part of the same action. Because the either/or distinction does not apply to our situation, neither does this SAC entry.
That particular SAC entry applies to an effect, such as fireball, that delivers its damage after a saving throw rather than after an attack roll. In this case, the poison damage is delivered after both an attack roll and a saving throw as part of the same action.
A poison effect occuring after a saving throw still is the case even if it also does after an attack roll as well and i would definitly have this SAC apply in my campaign.
It does answer the question by saying It it is no help against effect that delivers its damage after a saving throwl, which is what the spider bite does.
What it doesn't say it that it only work for save effect that aren't delivered after an attack roll.
But that's precisely the problem; the example only highlight cases where no attack roll is involved at any stage.
Whether the secondary damage requires a save first is essentially irrelevant, because it's still part of an attack; without any guidance or ruling that actually tells us to separate the two (which is not what the Sage Advice says) then there is no clear reason to do so. The Sage Advice response even states "after a saving throw rather than after an attack roll", well in the case of the spider bite it's delivering the poison damage after both an attack roll and a saving throw, not only one or the other.
The Sage Advice basically states "Uncanny Dodge only works with attacks" which is what we already knew, it doesn't tell us what to do about attacks with additional damage, specifically from secondary effects, which is what the spider bite does. I mean it's not surprising, since that's not what the question was asking about; it was only asking if Uncanny Dodge is automatic and if it works with spell attacks which it does answer, just not in a way that also helps with multipart attack damage like this.
Critical hit also affect an attack's damage but not secondary effect's damage contingent on save as its not part of it but a different damage roll entirely. I'd base my ruling on the Devs take its how its seems intended to work for sure.
@DaveWil33 Would only be a second damage roll if there was something locked behind a save like poison damage,
@JeremyECrawford If an attack has a damage roll but also a second damage roll (not extra damage) that is contingent on a saving throw, the damage of that second source is a different damage roll from the first.
@MeatVoltron Is that additional damage impacted by a critical hit?
@JeremyECrawford Saving throws can't score critical hits. If a saving throw is contingent on an attack hitting, the save is unaffected by that attack scoring a critical hit.
Critical hit also affect an attack's damage but not secondary effect's damage contingent on save as its not part of it but a different damage roll entirely. I'd base my ruling on the Devs take its how its seems intended to work for sure.
@DaveWil33 Would only be a second damage roll if there was something locked behind a save like poison damage,
@JeremyECrawford If an attack has a damage roll but also a second damage roll (not extra damage) that is contingent on a saving throw, the damage of that second source is a different damage roll from the first.
@MeatVoltron Is that additional damage impacted by a critical hit?
@JeremyECrawford Saving throws can't score critical hits. If a saving throw is contingent on an attack hitting, the save is unaffected by that attack scoring a critical hit.
Rules wise critical hits aren't terribly well defined in this case either; in the Critical Hits rules themselves all it says is "if the attack involves other damage … you roll those twice as well", so there's no clear justification for not doubling the poison too.
If we look at step 3 of Making an Attack it says "some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage", which seems to cover the poison damage (even though it is also damage, it's damage conditional on a save), but this still seems to make that "special effect" part of the attack because it's under the "resolve the attack" step.
So this becomes a classic example of Crawford saying something that's not backed up in the actual rules, and issuing no errata or Sage Advice to address it officially; it might well be the intention but it's not what the rules say. If a DM ruled that a critical hit doubled the poison damage because it's part of an attack, then that'd be entirely reasonable as well, because as far as Rules As Written is concerned there is support for the damage being part of the attack in RAW, and DMs can't be expected to go by Crawford tweets when they are officially unofficial.
And really it's not an intention I'd agree with anyway, at least not without some explicit rule being added to create separation, because really what we're talking about is treating "piercing plus poison" differently to "piercing plus maybe poison", because this would weirdly make Uncanny Dodge better against the stronger attack (the former) and worse against the weaker attack (the latter).
A critical hit would double and Uncanny Dodge would halve an attack's damage worded like a green dragon's bite for exemple;
Bite. Melee Weapon Attack: +15 to hit, reach 15 ft., one target. Hit: 19 (2d10 + 8) piercing damage plus 10 (3d6) poison damage.
Let's look at the comparison of this bite attack with the phase spider's bite attack.
In both cases, the bite is an attack roll made against the target's AC.
In both cases, a missed attack does no piercing damage and no poison damage.
In both cases, a successful attack inflicts piercing damage and poison damage.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the existence of a saving throw to potentially mitigate a portion of the poison damage makes the phase spider's poison no longer part of the attack and a separate secondary effect as part of the same action, and therefore incompatible with uncanny dodge. Hypothetically, if the phase spider's bite attack were reworded to use the sentence structure from the adult green dragon's bite attack and looked something like this, would you say uncanny dodge applies?
Bite. Melee Weapon Attack: +4 to hit, reach 5 ft., one creature. Hit: 7 (1d10 + 2) piercing damage and 18 (4d8) poison damage, or half as much poison damage on a successful DC 11 CON save.
In the interest of presenting all evidence I have uncovered while researching this topic, I will present what looks like a pretty solid tweet in evidence against what I am arguing.
I don't feel like this situation applies to the bite of a phase spider, but others might. The crux of Jeremy's statement is that the saving throw determines whether the poison damage is applied at all, thereby making it a secondary effect of the attack. In the case of the phase spider, the poison damage is applied regardless of the saving throw, thereby making it part of the attack's primary damage.
Also, this is a discussion of critical hits, not uncanny dodge. They have a lot of overlap, but each game feature has its own rule.
Also, this is a tweet from November 2014, prior to the release of the 5th edition DMG he references in the tweet and certainly prior to the release of any SAC and errata that have come out in the last seven and a half years.
Also, Jeremy discusses intent, which is important, but my context in this thread has been interpreting RAW.
This situation to me apply very well in fact as in both cases the poison damage roll is a different damage roll after a saving throw rather than attack's damage.
I think, as a DM, my mindset is partially based on trying to entertain my players, but part of that is deciding that uncanny dodge applies to poisons in this particular situation (when the poison is imparted through the attack) because it lets the rogue feel super cool for using their unique class ability to survive a deadly encounter.
I would say that uncanny dodge and critical hits should follow the same rules, but I'm not super convinced by the poison damage being unable to crit.
"What can crit?" is not a question answered well by the PHB RAW and hence a fundamentally reasonable question to ask. I'm not aware of any additional rules in the DMG/SAC/Xanathar's that elucidate the answer, but we do have this:
Certain "rules" are really a matter of widespread player consensus rather than any rules source we have, because so many of the rules are missing. I believe one of them is interpreting the sentence above (and potentially ones like it, although I don't know any other good examples) to mean that a saving throw based rider on an attack is a distinct effect from the attack, and hence its damage is not attack damage. Note that this interpretation matters beyond both the questions of "can the damage crit?" and "will uncanny dodge work on the damage?"; the consequences are far-ranging because a very substantial number of rules care about attack damage. For one example of myriad, if riders are attack damage, a Horizon Walker can convert poison damage to force. Another example is Concentration saves - whether the target has to make 2 easier saves or 1 harder save.
I have always assumed that you can crit on poison, the justification being that the better the attack roll (i.e. a crit) the more likely the poison is to get into the bloodstream near your heart/lungs/brain/another vital organ, causing the poison to have a more powerfully adverse effect. Thus an uncanny dodge would be the rogue causing the strike to land in a less critical area, so that instead of the strike getting poison into your pulmonary vein right by the heart, the strike would get poison into your arm, making its effect more localized to that area and less damaging.
I also would agree that letting the rogue feel cooler with the uncanny dodge against poison (often a huge part of a creature's attack) is a good idea.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the existence of a saving throw to potentially mitigate a portion of the poison damage makes the phase spider's poison no longer part of the attack and a separate secondary effect as part of the same action, and therefore incompatible with uncanny dodge. Hypothetically, if the phase spider's bite attack were reworded to use the sentence structure from the adult green dragon's bite attack and looked something like this, would you say uncanny dodge applies?
Bite. Melee Weapon Attack: +4 to hit, reach 5 ft., one creature. Hit: 7 (1d10 + 2) piercing damage and 18 (4d8) poison damage, or half as much poison damage on a successful DC 11 CON save.
That's how I run it.
• If the attack hits and does multiple types of damage (e.g. flying snake) then all damage dice double on a crit and the total damage can be reduced by things like uncanny dodge.
• If the attack hits and then has an immediate conditional effect that causes damage (e.g. giant spider) then only the initial damage dice double on a crit and only that intial damage can be reduced by things like uncanny dodge.
• If the attack hits and then has a later conditional effect that causes damage (e.g. booming blade) then only the initial damage dice double on crit and only that intial damage can be reduced by things like uncanny dodge.
In the second case, it would be OK for a table to rule that all damage dice are doubled on a crit, but the fair thing to do would be to rule that all the damage can be reduced as well.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It does answer the question by saying It it is no help against effect that delivers its damage after a saving throwl, which is what the spider bite does.
What it doesn't say it that it only work for save effect that aren't delivered after an attack roll.
That particular SAC entry applies to an effect, such as fireball, that delivers its damage after a saving throw rather than after an attack roll. In this case, the poison damage is delivered after both an attack roll and a saving throw as part of the same action. Because the either/or distinction does not apply to our situation, neither does this SAC entry.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
A poison effect occuring after a saving throw still is the case even if it also does after an attack roll as well and i would definitly have this SAC apply in my campaign.
But that's precisely the problem; the example only highlight cases where no attack roll is involved at any stage.
Whether the secondary damage requires a save first is essentially irrelevant, because it's still part of an attack; without any guidance or ruling that actually tells us to separate the two (which is not what the Sage Advice says) then there is no clear reason to do so. The Sage Advice response even states "after a saving throw rather than after an attack roll", well in the case of the spider bite it's delivering the poison damage after both an attack roll and a saving throw, not only one or the other.
The Sage Advice basically states "Uncanny Dodge only works with attacks" which is what we already knew, it doesn't tell us what to do about attacks with additional damage, specifically from secondary effects, which is what the spider bite does. I mean it's not surprising, since that's not what the question was asking about; it was only asking if Uncanny Dodge is automatic and if it works with spell attacks which it does answer, just not in a way that also helps with multipart attack damage like this.
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.
Critical hit also affect an attack's damage but not secondary effect's damage contingent on save as its not part of it but a different damage roll entirely. I'd base my ruling on the Devs take its how its seems intended to work for sure.
Rules wise critical hits aren't terribly well defined in this case either; in the Critical Hits rules themselves all it says is "if the attack involves other damage … you roll those twice as well", so there's no clear justification for not doubling the poison too.
If we look at step 3 of Making an Attack it says "some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage", which seems to cover the poison damage (even though it is also damage, it's damage conditional on a save), but this still seems to make that "special effect" part of the attack because it's under the "resolve the attack" step.
So this becomes a classic example of Crawford saying something that's not backed up in the actual rules, and issuing no errata or Sage Advice to address it officially; it might well be the intention but it's not what the rules say. If a DM ruled that a critical hit doubled the poison damage because it's part of an attack, then that'd be entirely reasonable as well, because as far as Rules As Written is concerned there is support for the damage being part of the attack in RAW, and DMs can't be expected to go by Crawford tweets when they are officially unofficial.
And really it's not an intention I'd agree with anyway, at least not without some explicit rule being added to create separation, because really what we're talking about is treating "piercing plus poison" differently to "piercing plus maybe poison", because this would weirdly make Uncanny Dodge better against the stronger attack (the former) and worse against the weaker attack (the latter).
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.
Let's look at the comparison of this bite attack with the phase spider's bite attack.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the existence of a saving throw to potentially mitigate a portion of the poison damage makes the phase spider's poison no longer part of the attack and a separate secondary effect as part of the same action, and therefore incompatible with uncanny dodge. Hypothetically, if the phase spider's bite attack were reworded to use the sentence structure from the adult green dragon's bite attack and looked something like this, would you say uncanny dodge applies?
"Not all those who wander are lost"
In the interest of presenting all evidence I have uncovered while researching this topic, I will present what looks like a pretty solid tweet in evidence against what I am arguing.
I don't feel like this situation applies to the bite of a phase spider, but others might. The crux of Jeremy's statement is that the saving throw determines whether the poison damage is applied at all, thereby making it a secondary effect of the attack. In the case of the phase spider, the poison damage is applied regardless of the saving throw, thereby making it part of the attack's primary damage.
Also, this is a discussion of critical hits, not uncanny dodge. They have a lot of overlap, but each game feature has its own rule.
Also, this is a tweet from November 2014, prior to the release of the 5th edition DMG he references in the tweet and certainly prior to the release of any SAC and errata that have come out in the last seven and a half years.
Also, Jeremy discusses intent, which is important, but my context in this thread has been interpreting RAW.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
This situation to me apply very well in fact as in both cases the poison damage roll is a different damage roll after a saving throw rather than attack's damage.
I think, as a DM, my mindset is partially based on trying to entertain my players, but part of that is deciding that uncanny dodge applies to poisons in this particular situation (when the poison is imparted through the attack) because it lets the rogue feel super cool for using their unique class ability to survive a deadly encounter.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
I would say that uncanny dodge and critical hits should follow the same rules, but I'm not super convinced by the poison damage being unable to crit.
"What can crit?" is not a question answered well by the PHB RAW and hence a fundamentally reasonable question to ask. I'm not aware of any additional rules in the DMG/SAC/Xanathar's that elucidate the answer, but we do have this:
[Uncanny Dodge] [...] is no help against a[n] [...] effect [...] that delivers its damage after a saving throw rather than after an attack roll.
Certain "rules" are really a matter of widespread player consensus rather than any rules source we have, because so many of the rules are missing. I believe one of them is interpreting the sentence above (and potentially ones like it, although I don't know any other good examples) to mean that a saving throw based rider on an attack is a distinct effect from the attack, and hence its damage is not attack damage. Note that this interpretation matters beyond both the questions of "can the damage crit?" and "will uncanny dodge work on the damage?"; the consequences are far-ranging because a very substantial number of rules care about attack damage. For one example of myriad, if riders are attack damage, a Horizon Walker can convert poison damage to force. Another example is Concentration saves - whether the target has to make 2 easier saves or 1 harder save.
I have always assumed that you can crit on poison, the justification being that the better the attack roll (i.e. a crit) the more likely the poison is to get into the bloodstream near your heart/lungs/brain/another vital organ, causing the poison to have a more powerfully adverse effect. Thus an uncanny dodge would be the rogue causing the strike to land in a less critical area, so that instead of the strike getting poison into your pulmonary vein right by the heart, the strike would get poison into your arm, making its effect more localized to that area and less damaging.
I also would agree that letting the rogue feel cooler with the uncanny dodge against poison (often a huge part of a creature's attack) is a good idea.
That's how I run it.
• If the attack hits and does multiple types of damage (e.g. flying snake) then all damage dice double on a crit and the total damage can be reduced by things like uncanny dodge.
• If the attack hits and then has an immediate conditional effect that causes damage (e.g. giant spider) then only the initial damage dice double on a crit and only that intial damage can be reduced by things like uncanny dodge.
• If the attack hits and then has a later conditional effect that causes damage (e.g. booming blade) then only the initial damage dice double on crit and only that intial damage can be reduced by things like uncanny dodge.
In the second case, it would be OK for a table to rule that all damage dice are doubled on a crit, but the fair thing to do would be to rule that all the damage can be reduced as well.