How far down the line does it go? Say the spell attack inflicting contagion crits and a creature is later inflicted with flesh rot. Is the extra damage caused by the vulnerability imposed by the disease subject to doubling due to contagion critting? If it weren't for the disease imposed by the spell that crit (in this hypothetical), you would not be taking some portion of damage. Because that spell attack crits, should it not be doubled?
It seems like obviously no, but to say that you have to make some separation between damage caused by an attack directly and damage that is still the result of a particular attack but not directly caused by it. If you say that "vulnerability is a secondary condition that can't be affected by a crit" then you have to accept that the same statement can be said about poison or any saving throw effect.
No, it is not linked to a hit, it is linked to taking piercing or slashing damage and more pointedly to a saving throw as well, which is not the same. doubling it goes not only against the RAI but against the RAW as well in this case.
This is objectively not the case. It's the hit that causes the damage, not the piercing damage. You could also have the somewhat unlikely but not impossible scenario where the target is immune to piercing damage but not to poison damage. The target the would still take poison damage sinc ethe poison damage is not dependent on whether or not they took any piercing damage.
I don't agree: "A creature that takes piercing or slashing damage from an object coated with the poison is exposed to its effects." RAW, It is the only way to be exposed to the effect, as per the poison rules. So if you do not take piercing or slashing damage, you would not be exposed to the poison, and therefore take no damage either.
Cool. Except that this thread is about a snake biting a half-orc. Maybe we can stay on topic?
No, it is not linked to a hit, it is linked to taking piercing or slashing damage and more pointedly to a saving throw as well, which is not the same. doubling it goes not only against the RAI but against the RAW as well in this case.
This is objectively not the case. It's the hit that causes the damage, not the piercing damage. You could also have the somewhat unlikely but not impossible scenario where the target is immune to piercing damage but not to poison damage. The target the would still take poison damage sinc ethe poison damage is not dependent on whether or not they took any piercing damage.
I don't agree: "A creature that takes piercing or slashing damage from an object coated with the poison is exposed to its effects." RAW, It is the only way to be exposed to the effect, as per the poison rules. So if you do not take piercing or slashing damage, you would not be exposed to the poison, and therefore take no damage either.
Cool. Except that this thread is about a snake biting a half-orc. Maybe we can stay on topic?
It is perfectly on topic, my point being that poison, exactly like strength drain or ghoul paralysis is a consequence of being hit, it's not the damage caused by the hit, and therefore is not doubled. Doing differently, in addition to not being in line with the intent of the rule, creates a discrepancy in two places, how you handle poison in general and how you handle consequences to an attack.
Now, if you want to go back to the OP's question, my position is that Davedamon has answered completely and in agreement with these principles in post #26.
Did you miss the part where Dave also said he wasn't able to find anything explicit to prove that? You're grasping at straws. You've formed a biased conclusion, and are working backward to cherry-pick weak evidence to defend that conclusion.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Now, if you want to go back to the OP's question, my position is that Davedamon has answered completely and in agreement with these principles in post #26.
Yeah, I would like to clarify that what I said was not a solid answer to the question and was my gut instinct. On hitting the books, I couldn't find anything RAW or Sage Advice (or even a JC tweet) to support what I said. It is merely some weak inference from reading between the lines on some rules.
im simply attempting to ask the same question with similar effects.
by the interpretation of others, this rider damage is predicated by an attack roll that crit, regardless of the separation of time, checks, savingthrow, or movement. As such, by their own logic, the crit would continue until all subsequent damage after the attack is over.
i submit my second example, searing smite. There is both initial bonus damage on hit as a result of the successful attack, and saving throws afterward.
individuals are asserting that the initial crit doubles all damage afterward, even on following turns AND gated behind saving throws.
this seems to me to be a misinterpretation of the raw, rai, and the specific beats general rule.
the position these individuals are taking seems to be “well it doesn’t tell me when a crit actually ends, so it goes on forever as long as there was an attack roll that rolled a 20 that initiated it” which is a far cry from the exclusion based rules design the entire game is designed around.
individuals are asserting that the initial crit doubles all damage afterward, even on following turns AND gated behind saving throws.
this seems to me to be a misinterpretation of the raw, rai, and the specific beats general rule.
The rule for crits says "If the attack involves other damage dice...". It declines to say what 'involves' actually means, but the simplest reading is "Contained in the Hit block, or as part of a trait that specifies effects that occur on a hit". That may well not be RAI, but it is RAW, and 'specific beats general' doesn't come up, because there is nothing actually specific ('specific' would be "this damage is unaffected by critical hits" or words to that effect).
I would rule that the crit only applies to instantaneous effects, as the attack is done once those effects are resolved, but that's still reading between the lines.
No, it does not. Really. Here it is: "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 them together."
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 them together. Then add any relevant modifiers as normal. To speed up play, you can roll all the damage dice at once.
For example, if you score a critical hit with a dagger, roll 2d4 for the damage, rather than 1d4, and then add your relevant ability modifier. If the attack involves other damage dice, such as from the rogue's Sneak Attack feature, you roll those dice twice as well.
individuals are asserting that the initial crit doubles all damage afterward, even on following turns AND gated behind saving throws.
this seems to me to be a misinterpretation of the raw, rai, and the specific beats general rule.
The rule for crits says "If the attack involves other damage dice...". It declines to say what 'involves' actually means, but the simplest reading is "Contained in the Hit block, or as part of a trait that specifies effects that occur on a hit". That may well not be RAI, but it is RAW, and 'specific beats general' doesn't come up, because there is nothing actually specific ('specific' would be "this damage is unaffected by critical hits" or words to that effect).
I would rule that the crit only applies to instantaneous effects, as the attack is done once those effects are resolved, but that's still reading between the lines.
I disagree that that’s the simplest reading. The simplest reading is “whatever damage the hit does before the intercession of any additional requirement, like Booming Blade’s movement, Witch Bolt’s action, or a poison’s saving throw.” The extra damage from these effects is only possible because of the attack, but it’s actually the direct result of a separate event. I respect the broader view that all of that damage is doubled if the initial attack roll is a crit. I don’t think it’s the simplest view, but it’s not contradicted by RAW. There are good arguments in favor of it, the very arguments everyone has made here.
I don’t think there’s any text-based argument in favor of some but not all of those examples being able to crit.
Lyxen, I do agree with the general thrust of your argument, but you’re wrong about what the rules don’t say. “If the attack involves other damage dice, such as from the rogue's Sneak Attack feature, you roll those dice twice as well” is a line quoted directly from the PHB’s section on critical hits.
This is not what he said, please reread post #26, what he said is that he could not find a reference where damage sources are gated behind either a save or an attack, which would indeed have been complete proof, but the argument is not based on this.
I did say that in a follow up post. There is no explicit rule that I could find that states a source counts as anything gated behind an attack roll or saving throws.
I disagree that that’s the simplest reading. The simplest reading is “whatever damage the hit does before the intercession of any additional requirement, like Booming Blade’s movement, Witch Bolt’s action, or a poison’s saving throw.”
By that reading sneak attack cannot crit (it has an additional requirement of Advantage or an adjacent ally).
It's certainly possible to come up with a consistent rule that excludes damage after a save (Lyxen's rule appears consistent enough), but any rule that requires you to separately consider all the dice you roll as part of an attack and decide which of them can crit is not as simple as 'roll all the dice twice'.
I believed an issue here is that everyone seems to be siting singular pieces of general rules that pertain to this feature, and features like it. The fact is that pretty much every single one of these quotes, from the PHB are all general rules citations that all contribute to this features mechanics.
they all are equally valid and need to be thought of together.
the only specific rule mentioned is the snakes attack feature itself which adds a saving throw to an attack which is conditionally tied to the attack successfully hitting.
frankly at this point everyone seems to be refusing to acknowledge any information that doesn’t substantiate what ever point they’ve arrived at.
I disagree that that’s the simplest reading. The simplest reading is “whatever damage the hit does before the intercession of any additional requirement, like Booming Blade’s movement, Witch Bolt’s action, or a poison’s saving throw.”
By that reading sneak attack cannot crit (it has an additional requirement of Advantage or an adjacent ally).
It's certainly possible to come up with a consistent rule that excludes damage after a save (Lyxen's rule appears consistent enough), but any rule that requires you to separately consider all the dice you roll as part of an attack and decide which of them can crit is not as simple as 'roll all the dice twice'.
No, sneak attack’s requirement is dealt with prior to the attack. It’s not additional.
No, sneak attack’s requirement is dealt with prior to the attack. It’s not additional.
No, it's quite clearly dealt with after the attack, because it only happens on a hit (you can decide whether you wish to use it after making the attack roll, and are prohibited from using it if you miss).
No, sneak attack’s requirement is dealt with prior to the attack. It’s not additional.
No, it's quite clearly dealt with after the attack, because it only happens on a hit (you can decide whether you wish to use it after making the attack roll, and are prohibited from using it if you miss).
I’m trying very hard to understand your position here, but it’s not easy. What I’m saying is that the requirements for sneak attack are either satisfied or not prior to the attack. That is, once you roll damage, sneak attack is a constant. There’s no additional event that must happen for sneak attack damage to kick in. You seem to be saying that it’s possible to make the attack and then afterward move to a position that would allow you to sneak attack and then roll that sneak attack damage. That’s ridiculous, so I’m confident it’s not the point you’re trying to make. But I’m not seeing how any other point is relevant to what I’m saying.
I guess I could try to rephrase what I think of as “the simplest reading of what ‘involves’ means,” which is that the only double-able dice are the dice you roll all at once once you know you’ve hit. Since the saving throw comes after this and the poison damage is rolled separately, it’s a separate instance of damage and these are no longer “involved” by the attack. Since this doesn’t require us to constantly remember whether or not we critted for successive damage rolls, I feel it’s a lot simpler than the “everything after ‘on a hit’” reading.
I’m trying very hard to understand your position here, but it’s not easy. What I’m saying is that the requirements for sneak attack are either satisfied or not prior to the attack.
The requirements for sneak attack are
Finesse or Ranged weapon (determined prior to attack).
You hit with an attack (not resolved until after rolling, as well as reactions to rolling, such as Shield)
You have advantage, or an adjacent ally and lack disadvantage (can change between declaring the attack and rolling, such as a nearby Protection style fighter using his reaction to impose disadvantage).
Not usable more than once per turn (limit is number of hits it can apply to, not number of attacks)
Okay, that does clarify some things, so thanks! I can see how the language I chose may have been imprecise.
The point remains that sneak attack does not require any additional event beyond the attack. Nor does Hex or Hunter’s Mark. You get to roll the damage from those effects along with your weapon’s damage. You can’t do that with the poison, nor with any of the other examples. There is an intermediary event that must be resolved first. “A single crit allows you to double the dice of multiple damage rolls” is a bridge I don’t think it’s possible to cross while claiming to be taking the “simplest” reading.
The point remains that sneak attack does not require any additional event beyond the attack. Nor does Hex or Hunter’s Mark. You get to roll the damage from those effects along with your weapon’s damage. You can’t do that with the poison, nor with any of the other examples.
Sure you can, as long as you keep the damage dice distinct (which you already have to do for Hex, as a target may have resistance to necrotic damage but not weapon damage, or vice versa).
The point remains that sneak attack does not require any additional event beyond the attack. Nor does Hex or Hunter’s Mark. You get to roll the damage from those effects along with your weapon’s damage. You can’t do that with the poison, nor with any of the other examples.
Sure you can, as long as you keep the damage dice distinct (which you already have to do for Hex, as a target may have resistance to necrotic damage but not weapon damage, or vice versa).
Whether you physically roll them at the same time does not negate the interceding game step of rolling a saving throw.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
How far down the line does it go? Say the spell attack inflicting contagion crits and a creature is later inflicted with flesh rot. Is the extra damage caused by the vulnerability imposed by the disease subject to doubling due to contagion critting? If it weren't for the disease imposed by the spell that crit (in this hypothetical), you would not be taking some portion of damage. Because that spell attack crits, should it not be doubled?
It seems like obviously no, but to say that you have to make some separation between damage caused by an attack directly and damage that is still the result of a particular attack but not directly caused by it. If you say that "vulnerability is a secondary condition that can't be affected by a crit" then you have to accept that the same statement can be said about poison or any saving throw effect.
Cool. Except that this thread is about a snake biting a half-orc. Maybe we can stay on topic?
Did you miss the part where Dave also said he wasn't able to find anything explicit to prove that? You're grasping at straws. You've formed a biased conclusion, and are working backward to cherry-pick weak evidence to defend that conclusion.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Yeah, I would like to clarify that what I said was not a solid answer to the question and was my gut instinct. On hitting the books, I couldn't find anything RAW or Sage Advice (or even a JC tweet) to support what I said. It is merely some weak inference from reading between the lines on some rules.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Yea, I agree with you, and that’s my point.
im simply attempting to ask the same question with similar effects.
by the interpretation of others, this rider damage is predicated by an attack roll that crit, regardless of the separation of time, checks, savingthrow, or movement. As such, by their own logic, the crit would continue until all subsequent damage after the attack is over.
i submit my second example, searing smite. There is both initial bonus damage on hit as a result of the successful attack, and saving throws afterward.
individuals are asserting that the initial crit doubles all damage afterward, even on following turns AND gated behind saving throws.
this seems to me to be a misinterpretation of the raw, rai, and the specific beats general rule.
the position these individuals are taking seems to be “well it doesn’t tell me when a crit actually ends, so it goes on forever as long as there was an attack roll that rolled a 20 that initiated it” which is a far cry from the exclusion based rules design the entire game is designed around.
The rule for crits says "If the attack involves other damage dice...". It declines to say what 'involves' actually means, but the simplest reading is "Contained in the Hit block, or as part of a trait that specifies effects that occur on a hit". That may well not be RAI, but it is RAW, and 'specific beats general' doesn't come up, because there is nothing actually specific ('specific' would be "this damage is unaffected by critical hits" or words to that effect).
I would rule that the crit only applies to instantaneous effects, as the attack is done once those effects are resolved, but that's still reading between the lines.
Problematically, I think whatever you rule here, you have to read between the lines to do it.
You've trimmed too much. Here's the entire rule:
I disagree that that’s the simplest reading. The simplest reading is “whatever damage the hit does before the intercession of any additional requirement, like Booming Blade’s movement, Witch Bolt’s action, or a poison’s saving throw.” The extra damage from these effects is only possible because of the attack, but it’s actually the direct result of a separate event. I respect the broader view that all of that damage is doubled if the initial attack roll is a crit. I don’t think it’s the simplest view, but it’s not contradicted by RAW. There are good arguments in favor of it, the very arguments everyone has made here.
I don’t think there’s any text-based argument in favor of some but not all of those examples being able to crit.
Lyxen, I do agree with the general thrust of your argument, but you’re wrong about what the rules don’t say. “If the attack involves other damage dice, such as from the rogue's Sneak Attack feature, you roll those dice twice as well” is a line quoted directly from the PHB’s section on critical hits.
I did say that in a follow up post. There is no explicit rule that I could find that states a source counts as anything gated behind an attack roll or saving throws.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
By that reading sneak attack cannot crit (it has an additional requirement of Advantage or an adjacent ally).
It's certainly possible to come up with a consistent rule that excludes damage after a save (Lyxen's rule appears consistent enough), but any rule that requires you to separately consider all the dice you roll as part of an attack and decide which of them can crit is not as simple as 'roll all the dice twice'.
I believed an issue here is that everyone seems to be siting singular pieces of general rules that pertain to this feature, and features like it. The fact is that pretty much every single one of these quotes, from the PHB are all general rules citations that all contribute to this features mechanics.
they all are equally valid and need to be thought of together.
the only specific rule mentioned is the snakes attack feature itself which adds a saving throw to an attack which is conditionally tied to the attack successfully hitting.
frankly at this point everyone seems to be refusing to acknowledge any information that doesn’t substantiate what ever point they’ve arrived at.
good luck with your games and future endeavors.
No, sneak attack’s requirement is dealt with prior to the attack. It’s not additional.
No, it's quite clearly dealt with after the attack, because it only happens on a hit (you can decide whether you wish to use it after making the attack roll, and are prohibited from using it if you miss).
I’m trying very hard to understand your position here, but it’s not easy. What I’m saying is that the requirements for sneak attack are either satisfied or not prior to the attack. That is, once you roll damage, sneak attack is a constant. There’s no additional event that must happen for sneak attack damage to kick in. You seem to be saying that it’s possible to make the attack and then afterward move to a position that would allow you to sneak attack and then roll that sneak attack damage. That’s ridiculous, so I’m confident it’s not the point you’re trying to make. But I’m not seeing how any other point is relevant to what I’m saying.
I guess I could try to rephrase what I think of as “the simplest reading of what ‘involves’ means,” which is that the only double-able dice are the dice you roll all at once once you know you’ve hit. Since the saving throw comes after this and the poison damage is rolled separately, it’s a separate instance of damage and these are no longer “involved” by the attack. Since this doesn’t require us to constantly remember whether or not we critted for successive damage rolls, I feel it’s a lot simpler than the “everything after ‘on a hit’” reading.
The requirements for sneak attack are
Okay, that does clarify some things, so thanks! I can see how the language I chose may have been imprecise.
The point remains that sneak attack does not require any additional event beyond the attack. Nor does Hex or Hunter’s Mark. You get to roll the damage from those effects along with your weapon’s damage. You can’t do that with the poison, nor with any of the other examples. There is an intermediary event that must be resolved first. “A single crit allows you to double the dice of multiple damage rolls” is a bridge I don’t think it’s possible to cross while claiming to be taking the “simplest” reading.
Sure you can, as long as you keep the damage dice distinct (which you already have to do for Hex, as a target may have resistance to necrotic damage but not weapon damage, or vice versa).
Whether you physically roll them at the same time does not negate the interceding game step of rolling a saving throw.