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 poison damage from the bite attack also does not require any additional event to occur in order to be rolled. Its the same 3d6 no matter the save. If the save modified the dice in any way (for example, if the save negated the damage entirely), I would agree that it was not part of the crit. But that is not the case. a hit always results in the 3d6 poison damage, which is then modified after the roll by whether the save is successful. The PHB's direction for determining damage is that you roll the damage dice before applying any modifier. the save determines a modifier (1/2 damage), not the damage roll. so if you follow the PHB's direction, the process is:
Roll to Hit > If Hit, then
Roll Damage Dice (1d4 + 4 piercing + 3d6 poison; this amount of dice never changes if a hit occurs) (this is where a crit would be applied as it modifies the damage dice, not damage)
Apply modifiers > (roll save for 1/2 poison damage) (add resistance, if valid) (if a crit modified damage, it would take place here, but it doesn't)
Final result.
This differs from a pure saving throw spell/ability, which removes step 1, or a spell like ice knife, which resolves the attack roll portion prior to the saving throw portion (based on its unique wording). In both those cases, a crit is either not possible or limited to the attack portion only.
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.
See my post #86...the saving throw does not modify damage rolls(ie change the dice), just final damage. crits affect damage rolls (ie changes the dice), not final damage (although the roll obviously affects damage down the line if there are more dice, there is a clear distinction between a damage roll and final damage). PHB rules say damage rolls occur prior to modifiers, and the saving throw is obviously creating a modifier to the rolled damage rather than actually modifying the damage roll (dice) itself.
By math, on a hit and a failed save I roll 1d4+4+3d6. on a (2) + 4 + (4+5+3) the damage roll is a 18.
on a hit and a successful save, I roll the same dice for the same result. the save then halves the (4+5+6) but it doesn't change the roll (dice).
So, if it doesn't change the roll, then the dice are not gated behind or caused by the save, so therefore they have to be due to the hit.
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.
Except that you are wrong and now you are trying to backpedal. You clearly said that poison damage is reliant on piercing damage being made. In the situation being discussed, this is objectively false. Nowhere in the rules for the attack in question does the poison damage rely on the target also taking piercing damage. And no, there is no discrepancy (again, this is completely of topic) since you are talking about a completely different scenario. You are arguing a strawman.
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).
Yeah, this is where I'm seeing a disconnect between actual rules vs. played experience. We all have our own variations on things at our tables for the sake of efficiency, yet the order of operations given by the rules (as has been posted numerous times) is explicit that damage dice are all rolled at the same time. You do not resolve the piercing damage, make a saving throw, and then resolve poison damage; as far as the rules are concerned, it's all one damage roll, regardless of the method(s) you use to keep things organized at the table.
When there is a rider on an attack, it is part of that attack. Sneak Attack dice are part of the attack, Divine Smite dice are part of the attack, Hex damage is part of the attack, Thunderous Smite, Magic Weapon, Holy Weapon, etc are all part of the attack. An ability that requires you to spend a subsequent action/bonus action/reaction are not part of the attack. You might end up using Hellish Rebuke as a reaction to a different reaction to your original attack (happening at the same time on your turn), but that's not part of the attack. Witch Bolt only has one attack roll, and can crit on that attack roll. However, using your action on subsequent turns to inflict further damage is no longer part of that initial critical. The benefit of that spell is that you don't need to make an attack roll every turn after the initial roll, and the expense associated with that is losing the ability to crit again without expending another spell slot to recast the spell.
Saving throws are always in response to something which has occurred, and are done to mitigate/negate how that something affects the target. Being hit with the snake's bite attack causes piercing and poison damage. That occurs immediately from the attack roll. Any other damage dice from other possible riders to an attack roll also happen immediately. You then make a saving throw, if any of the riders also require it. You aren't making a saving throw to avoid being poisoned; you are poisoned (not the condition). You are making a saving throw to determine how your body responds to the poison that is now in you.
This is true for everything with a saving throw; you are responding to something that has actually occurred, potentially altering the end result. Consider the classic Fireball: why are you making a saving throw? To stop the fireball from happening? No, it already happened, and the caster rolls all of their dice immediately. You get to make a saving throw as a response, potentially only taking half (or none in conjunction with an evasion feature) of what they rolled, not to time travel.
[edit] To be clear, as far as I'm aware from my time with 5e, having both an attack roll and saving throw on the same attack/action is exceptionally rare. Before this thread kicked off, I wasn't aware of any instances of this kind. Even the notorious Ice Knife is clear about the spell actually having two entirely discrete effects that resolve independently of each other.
We know for a fact that the only time a critical hit is even possible is when there is an attack roll, and we know that because that's what the rule says.
We do not know for a fact that anything involving a saving throw cannot coincide with a critical hit. We know that because the rules do not ever make any references to it one way or another. I do believe they intended for damage with saving throws to be excluded from the ability to score a critical, but they didn't bother to actually write the sentence. Instead, they chose to draft the overwhelming majority of abilities to have either an attack roll or a saving throw.
Whether knowingly or not, they left the door open for this to happen, and they compounded that mistake when writing the snake's ability. Does it suck for that dead Paladin? Yeah, absolutely, I feel for them in my bones. Being on the receiving end of a crit always sucks, and especially so at low-level. Does it break the rest of the system? Nah, it's not the end of the world.
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.
The reason for me using this example is to show that, with your method of putting the poison inside the hit box, you create a discrepancy in the way you handle poison from a poisoned weapon and poison for a creature.
The rules already did that. If you hit a target with heavy armor mastery with a poisoned weapon for 1 point of piercing damage (plus an Injury that does 2d4 save for half), he will take no damage because the trigger for an Injury type poison is doing damage. If a poisonous snake bites the same target for the same 1 point + 2d4 save for half, he will take 2d4 save for half, because the trigger is hitting.
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.
Except that you are wrong and now you are trying to backpedal. You clearly said that poison damage is reliant on piercing damage being made. In the situation being discussed, this is objectively false. Nowhere in the rules for the attack in question does the poison damage rely on the target also taking piercing damage. And no, there is no discrepancy (again, this is completely of topic) since you are talking about a completely different scenario. You are arguing a strawman.
Please don't use words like this, in particular when it's patently untrue, the discussion has been civil so far, so don't go in that direction and create problems.
The reason for me using this example is to show that, with your method of putting the poison inside the hit box, you create a discrepancy in the way you handle poison from a poisoned weapon and poison for a creature. And that discrepancy is compounded by the fact that the poison effect differs from creature to creature (compare Wyvern and Giant Poisonous Snake for example), something that you cannot reconciliate either.
There is a discrepancy because those situations because poisoning a weapon is adding a trait to that weapon that doesn't normally exist. D&D writers did not write a "poisoned" version of each weapon, nor is any weapon (save a dagger of venom ) poisoned by default; so they wrote a rule for poisoning a weapon in general. Creatures are different. a venomous creature doesn't have the option of including or excluding poison in its attacks (this is disregarding real world venomous creatures who can, but D&D creatures don't act that way). I would argue that adding said poison to a weapon (and subsequently to an attack) is the same as adding a smite, hex, or sneak attack, unless the rule for the weapon poison explicitly tied the damage to a save (by making the save negate damage rather than halve it, like in the magic weapon i mentioned above), and the poison damage on the weapon would be doubled on a crit.
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).
Yeah, this is where I'm seeing a disconnect between actual rules vs. played experience. We all have our own variations on things at our tables for the sake of efficiency, yet the order of operations given by the rules (as has been posted numerous times) is explicit that damage dice are all rolled at the same time. You do not resolve the piercing damage, make a saving throw, and then resolve poison damage; as far as the rules are concerned, it's all one damage roll, regardless of the method(s) you use to keep things organized at the table.
That's definitely not true. Can you cite any rule that suggests that? Rolling all the damage at once is something someone may do for efficiency's sake, but the rules definitely don't say it. They say: "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." There's nothing to suggest that damage as a result of those "special effects" is rolled at the same time as the attack's damage. Indeed, you can't do it at the same time if the target has to make a saving throw first. You're welcome to delay the initial damage roll and do it all together if that's more convenient, but the actual rules are that you roll immediate damage immediately, and anything else will have its own rules.
That's definitely not true. Can you cite any rule that suggests that? Rolling all the damage at once is something someone may do for efficiency's sake, but the rules definitely don't say it. They say: "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." There's nothing to suggest that damage as a result of those "special effects" is rolled at the same time as the attack's damage.
That was actually the original question in this thread: do you apply two instances of damage or one. This matters for instant death due to massive damage, traits such as relentless endurance, and whether you might wind up with an automatic failed death check when dropped by a hit (because damage without the poison reduced you to zero hp). While we got bogged down in critical hits, the other question is actually fairly significant.
This is true for everything with a saving throw; you are responding to something that has actually occurred, potentially altering the end result. Consider the classic Fireball: why are you making a saving throw? To stop the fireball from happening? No, it already happened, and the caster rolls all of their dice immediately. You get to make a saving throw as a response, potentially only taking half (or none in conjunction with an evasion feature) of what they rolled, not to time travel.
Sorry Sigred, but here your wrong. You are literally making a saving throw to stop that fireball's damage from happening. Closely read the Fireball description, it only allows you to roll your dice after the saving throw has been made.
"Each creature in a 20-foot-radius sphere centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw. A target takes 8d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one."
Notice you roll the saving throw first, and after you roll that saving throw, it tells you the damage dice.
Edit to make it clearer, yeah this is exactly what your talking about. Everyone rolls damage first for efficiently, as people rolling all dice at the same time is faster than rolling dice at different times, however it's not supported by the rules.
"Each creature in a 20-foot-radius sphere centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw. A target takes 8d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one."
Notice you roll the saving throw first, and after you roll that saving throw, it tells you the damage dice.
While this is true, the damage is always 8d6 -- you halve the final damage, not the number of dice rolled.
That doesn't go against anything I said. Roll saving throw, roll damage, than apply half/full damage accordingly. That's the order the spell puts it in, that's RAW. As I said though RAF, rolling damage first is just more convenient. However this is the rules forums, so RAW takes priority.
Edit: Oh I get what you mean, you just want me to fix the last statement and include the halving/not halving damage with that.
"Notice you roll the saving throw first, and after you roll that saving throw, it tells you the damage dice."
to
"Notice you roll the saving throw first, and after you roll that saving throw, it tells you the damage dice and if you need to half it or not."
Please don't use words like this, in particular when it's patently untrue, the discussion has been civil so far, so don't go in that direction and create problems.
Again, you seem to be very easily upset by people disagreeing with you. Maybe take a step back for a while?
The reason for me using this example is to show that, with your method of putting the poison inside the hit box, you create a discrepancy in the way you handle poison from a poisoned weapon and poison for a creature. And that discrepancy is compounded by the fact that the poison effect differs from creature to creature (compare Wyvern and Giant Poisonous Snake for example), something that you cannot reconciliate either.
There is no discrepancy what so ever. The fact that you can't handle two different kinds of attacks acting in two different ways doesn't change that. And it's not me doing this, it's literally the Rules As Written. You can't only claim RAW when it suits your purposes and RAW for the topic at hand says nothing about the target having to take piercing damage to also take the poison damage. The fact that you can't seem handle two different kinds of attacks acting in two different ways doesn't change that. So yes, what I said is completely abjectively true. It's not very difficult, different attacks have different rules because they are not the same.
They indeed did not, yet, they made the intent clear in a tweet.
And once more with feeling, tweets are not rules. At least not in D&D 5e.
I just want to remind people to do their best to remain on topic. It's very easy to get off topic when you bring in another rule as an example and then get into the weeds about that rule. But it's important to say on task for the question at hand.
With regards to that question, there hasn't been any RAW provided (including myself who wasn't able to find a rule supporting my theory), but a lot of repeated opinions and tangents. If things keep going in circles, and if they start to get hostile, we'll be forced to lock the thread.
You would argue this, but without any support whatsoever. First, again, the intent has been made very clear by the designer. But more important, RAW, the sequence is extremely clear:
You roll for attack, if you hit you do the damage of the weapon, and double it if critical.
You check if the target has been exposed to the poison, which is the case if he has taken any slashing or piercing damage for the weapon.
If he has been exposed, then you roll the save and you apply either full or half poison damage.
That is the rule for 'Injury' poisons, as defined in the DMG. It is not the rule for creature powers (nor for items such as a Dagger of Venom), which have no injury requirement. It could be they are intended to work the same, but as written, they don't. And given that every other location in the game (including effects that are nominally identical) ignores the poison rules in the DMG, I would say the anomaly is those rules, not everywhere else in the game
It's important to note that three things are being discussed here, some that relate to the original question and some that do not.
Creatures with secondary damage on attacks such as the Poisonous Snake:
Bite.Melee Weapon Attack: +5 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 1 piercing damage, and the target must make a DC 10 Constitution saving throw, taking 5 (2d4) poison damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.
A creature hit by the poisoned weapon or ammunition must make a DC 10 Constitution saving throw or take 1d4 poison damage. Once applied, the poison retains potency for 1 minute before drying.
Injury. Injury poison can be applied to weapons, ammunition, trap components, and other objects that deal piercing or slashing damage and remains potent until delivered through a wound or washed off. A creature that takes piercing or slashing damage from an object coated with the poison is exposed to its effects.
Please don't use words like this, in particular when it's patently untrue, the discussion has been civil so far, so don't go in that direction and create problems.
Again, you seem to be very easily upset by people disagreeing with you. Maybe take a step back for a while?
I'm sorry, but there is a difference between simply disagreeing and using aggressive language, which is what I've been subjected to without any call for it. I don't care about the reason,, but I understand that it is still not acceptable on these forums and I will report it if necessary, that's all.
And again, pointing out that you are wrong in your statements is not in any way aggresive. If you feel that it is, maybe you are taking this a bit too seriously and you would feel better if you step away for a bit?
The reason for me using this example is to show that, with your method of putting the poison inside the hit box, you create a discrepancy in the way you handle poison from a poisoned weapon and poison for a creature. And that discrepancy is compounded by the fact that the poison effect differs from creature to creature (compare Wyvern and Giant Poisonous Snake for example), something that you cannot reconciliate either.
There is no discrepancy what so ever. The fact that you can't handle two different kinds of attacks acting in two different ways doesn't change that. And it's not me doing this, it's literally the Rules As Written. You can't only claim RAW when it suits your purposes and RAW for the topic at hand says nothing about the target having to take piercing damage to also take the poison damage. The fact that you can't seem handle two different kinds of attacks acting in two different ways doesn't change that. So yes, what I said is completely abjectively true. It's not very difficult, different attacks have different rules because they are not the same.
Indeed, but when things work the same way with exactly the same wording, they should have the same result. When a Wyvern venom works one way with a sting and can work exacly the same way with a poisoned weapon, and this is absolutely supported by RAW otherwise, there is no reason to create different local rulings.
There is a clear consistent wording used all over the rules between the PH, the DMG, and the MM, which is that you include in the "Hit" section the base damage of the attack, everything noted as extra damage, and whatever is clearly specified by the word "plus", because it obviously adds to the Hit. You have clear examples of this in the flying snake and even more in Erinyes where it is both specified as extra damage and included with a "plus" in the hit area to show that it is indeed added to the hit itself. Clear, consistent.
And you have all the special effects of the attack, which are not linked to the Hit damage area but which are just linked to the fact that you have been hit (or sometimes other things, sometimes it's hit or miss, somtimes it's actually taking damage, even sometimes of a specific kind). These are consistently referered to with full stops or ", and" absolutely everywhere in the rules. These are clearly referenced in the PH. And some involve saving throws, others do not, some paralyse, drain, and some even do damage. But they are not part of the "Hit damage", they are simply a consequence of being hit. Clear, consistent.
Once more, everything is consistent here, but for some reason, and contrary to the intent of the designer, you want to muddy things and include things from one category in the other for reasons that I still don't fully understand as they are actually to the players' detriment.
Except that there is no clear and consistent wording. Nothing in the bite attack says anything about the neccesity of taking piercing damage for the target to take poison damage. You are talking about something that is completely different and off topic which therefor has no relevance to the question at hand. Again, please stay on topic.
They indeed did not, yet, they made the intent clear in a tweet.
And once more with feeling, tweets are not rules. At least not in D&D 5e.
And I did not say they were, but since the RAW can be misinterpreted, when you have two possible readings, I would rather stick with the one which is proven to be the intended one of the designer. Why would you do otherwise ?
Now you are moving the goalposts and you are also strawmanning. The tweets are in this case irrelevant since they are neither RAW nor RAI. The fact that you drop the "rules as" part does not change this. The designer clearly disagrees with you since he has implicitly stated that his tweets are not rules in D&D 5E. You are simply wrong on this matter.
It's important to note that three things are being discussed here, some that relate to the original question and some that do not.
Creatures with secondary damage on attacks such as the Poisonous Snake:
Bite.Melee Weapon Attack: +5 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 1 piercing damage, and the target must make a DC 10 Constitution saving throw, taking 5 (2d4) poison damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.
A creature hit by the poisoned weapon or ammunition must make a DC 10 Constitution saving throw or take 1d4 poison damage. Once applied, the poison retains potency for 1 minute before drying.
Injury. Injury poison can be applied to weapons, ammunition, trap components, and other objects that deal piercing or slashing damage and remains potent until delivered through a wound or washed off. A creature that takes piercing or slashing damage from an object coated with the poison is exposed to its effects.
Thanks for the summary Davedamon! Based on these distinctions, here are my rulings/interpretations: First off, because crits involve damage dice, that is the basic "currency" I'm taking into consideration in each case, not numerical damage...
#1 (poisonous snake): The wording combines the secondary effect with the primary (", and.."), and nowhere in the rules does it describe how to combine/separate damage rolls from single attacks/actions with multiple effects. In the absence of such a ruling, you have to look at how the mechanics might separate effects. In this case, the mechanic is a save, and that save does not trigger or gate the damage (ie, determine damage dice used), instead creating a modifier applied after damage is calculated (per order of operations in the PHB), so, my logic is that the poison damage dice are part of the hit and can double on a crit.
#2 (basic poison): same as the above, but in this case the save does trigger and gate the damage (ie, determines if the extra dice are used or not, based on success/failure), so using the same logic as above the dice for the poison damage are not part of the hit and is not doubled on a crit
#3 (injury poison): the trigger is taking damage, so by logic the damage roll for the hit is resolved prior to the poison save and the damage rolls are clearly separated. Regardless if the save is for half damage or damage negation, its a separate roll not tied to the hit, and would not double on a crit
On some specialty cases: For ice knife, the wording of the spell clearly separates the attack roll and saving throw portions and damage ("hit or miss") so only the attack roll portion would crit. For witch bolt, I could see an argument either way (and have expressed a willingness to change my mind on this thread), but I'm going back to my original opinion that the damage rolls themselves are clearly separated (they occur on different turns), so only the first would double on a crit. On this one I'm open to other opinions though(especially since its such a lackluster spell) My other interpretation could be that you roll the damage only at the start and use the same result on all subsequent turns (in that case, the crit could carry over, but I'm pretty certain that is a less RAW ruling on how to calculate the damage of the spell than the other way)
For those that would say "thats too complicated, the rulings should be simpler" ignores that the writers chose to write each of these separately using different terms and mechanics, so a general ruling is practically impossible without considering the exact wording of each.
On the OPs other questions: for the poisonous snake, based on the above interpretations, the damage would be from one source with one roll, so massive damage might come into play especially on a crit, but if massive damage didn't kill them outright, it would drop them to unconsciousness but not trigger a first failed death save, or relentless endurance would leave them at 1 hp.
#1 (poisonous snake): The wording combines the secondary effect with the primary (", and.."), and nowhere in the rules does it describe how to combine/separate damage rolls from single attacks/actions with multiple effects. In the absence of such a ruling, you have to look at how the mechanics might separate effects
Why does it have to be a mechanic ? he wording is in the RAW:
"Extra" damage and "plus" clearly adds the damage.
Full stops or "', and" which are used uniformly over the rules for special effects denotes this as a special effects and gates the damage. It's not even a question of saving throw, some special effects have them and some do not. And in any case, the absence of a "plus" clearly shows that it is not added. There is no reason to add it unless expressely worded.
I believe I've seen you say that english is not your first language, but in english a comma is not by any means a "full stop", but instead (among other things) joins two otherwise independent clauses (that could grammatically stand on their own) together. I agree that "extra" or "plus" is often used to describe secondary damage, but in that case there is often not a modifier associated and the ",and.." is not a grammatically correct use as the wording for the secondary damage does not constitute a clause that could grammatically stand on its own. the saving throw in this case can be either a modifier or a trigger/gate for damage, which feeds into your second question below:
And why does the save gate damage in one case an not the other ? What is the logic here, the reason if it's "the same as above" ?
I'll look at the second example first. In that example, the basic poison requires a save for the damage roll to take place at all. Its not modifying the damage, its modifying the actual dice. In this way, it is a "gate" to the use of said dice. For example, on a hit with dagger with this poison applied, a failed save means 1d4 + STR/DEX + 1d4 poison, but a successful save means 1d4 + STR/DEX only. The save is an event that triggers the use of additional dice, so those dice are not due to the hit itself.
Now for the first example. In this one, the creatures poison requires a save to modify the damage only, not change the dice rolled. So it is not triggering damage rolls, nor is it gating it. For example, on a hit from the snake, a failed save means you take 1 piercing + 2d4 poison. On a successful save, you take 1 piercing + 2d4 poison (less 1/2 the 2d4 roll). Note that the actual dice do not change. the save does not trigger the use of the dice, nor does it change anything about the dice at all, so the dice cannot be said to be due to the save. If they aren't due to the save, they have to be due to the hit, since that is the last preceeding "event" per se. and since hits can crit, and the crit affects damage dice, there is logic in saying that all dice in this instance double as they are all tied to the hit, not the save.
the "same as above" comment referred to this statement from my post btw: "The wording combines the secondary effect with the primary (", and.."), and nowhere in the rules does it describe how to combine/separate damage rolls from single attacks/actions with multiple effects. In the absence of such a ruling, you have to look at how the mechanics might separate effects."
Giant Poisonous Snake Attack: Bite. Melee Weapon Attack: +6 to hit, reach 10 ft., one target. Hit: 6 (1d4 + 4) piercing damage, and the target must make a DC 11 Constitution saving throw, taking 10 (3d6) poison damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.
dice used on a Failed Save: 1d4 + 3d6 (damage roll). dice used on a Successful save: 1d4 + 3d6. save does not change the dice, only modifies the result. Crits are applied to the dice, not to the result, and the order of operations says roll dice first, then apply modifiers to result. if all dice above are rolled because of the hit (they are, the save does nothing to change them, add to them, or remove them), then they can double on a crit.
Assassin: Shortsword. Melee Weapon Attack: +6 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 6 (1d6 + 3) piercing damage, and the target must make a DC 15 Constitution saving throw, taking 24 (7d6) poison damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.
This is exactly the same wording as the snake, but with different dice. So the same ruling as the snake applies.
Veteran using a shortsword poisoned with Serpent Venom: Shortsword. Melee Weapon Attack: +5 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 6 (1d6 + 3) piercing damage. Injury poison can be applied to weapons, ammunition, trap components, and other objects that deal piercing or slashing damage and remains potent until delivered through a wound or washed off. A creature that takes piercing or slashing damage from an object coated with the poison is exposed to its effects. A creature subjected to this poison must succeed on a DC 11 Constitution saving throw, taking 10 (3d6) poison damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.
In this case, the damage from the attack is clearly resolved separately from the poison, as the trigger for the save in question is the actual damage from the weapon. this is a simple if/then statement. "If damage/ then save" means that the attacks damage has to resolve prior to the save occuring. This clarity in the order of operations is missing in the first two examples, but here it is clear; the attack roll and damage have resolved prior to the saving throw, so any doubling due to the critical hit has also resolved prior to the saving throw.
Veteran using a dagger of venom: Dagger. Melee Weapon Attack: +5 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 6 (1d4 + 3) piercing damage. You can use an action to cause thick, black poison to coat the blade. The poison remains for 1 minute or until an attack using this weapon hits a creature. That creature must succeed on a DC 15 Constitution saving throw or take 2d10 poison damage and become poisoned for 1 minute. The dagger can't be used this way again until the next dawn.
In this case the save is tied to the hit, but the 2d10 dice are tied entirely to the save (this is not true for the first two examples where the dice do not change due to the save). because the 2d10 dice are not tied directly to the hit, they aren't part of the crit.
I would also make a point of stating that, especially with non-game terms, grammar changes do not necessarily mean mechanical changes; sometimes they are simply the best and/or most readable way to write a sentence. the writers use "x damage plus y damage" in instances because using "x damage, and y damage" is grammatically incorrect, but the mechanics of the two statements are not really that different. similarly, "x damage plus the target must make a DC xx saving throw, taking..." while not grammatically incorrect necessarily, reads like a run-on sentence, and the easier way to write (and read it) is the separate the clauses and join them with the ", and..." which is both grammatically correct and easier to read while still adding the effects together.
But at this point there is no further use in arguing. Either you agree or you don't, and typing all of this out is getting, quite frankly, tiring. I feel that you think that your POV is the only valid one, but as pointed out by many others, the RAW on this is not universally clear, so there can be multiple valid interpretations. Barring a 5000 page PHB written in legalese with a glossary the size of the current PHB, these gaps in understanding are inevitable, and sometimes that means stating your piece and moving on, rather than railing against every post that disagrees or comes to an alternate conclusion. I wish you the best in your games.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The poison damage from the bite attack also does not require any additional event to occur in order to be rolled. Its the same 3d6 no matter the save. If the save modified the dice in any way (for example, if the save negated the damage entirely), I would agree that it was not part of the crit. But that is not the case. a hit always results in the 3d6 poison damage, which is then modified after the roll by whether the save is successful. The PHB's direction for determining damage is that you roll the damage dice before applying any modifier. the save determines a modifier (1/2 damage), not the damage roll. so if you follow the PHB's direction, the process is:
This differs from a pure saving throw spell/ability, which removes step 1, or a spell like ice knife, which resolves the attack roll portion prior to the saving throw portion (based on its unique wording). In both those cases, a crit is either not possible or limited to the attack portion only.
See my post #86...the saving throw does not modify damage rolls(ie change the dice), just final damage. crits affect damage rolls (ie changes the dice), not final damage (although the roll obviously affects damage down the line if there are more dice, there is a clear distinction between a damage roll and final damage). PHB rules say damage rolls occur prior to modifiers, and the saving throw is obviously creating a modifier to the rolled damage rather than actually modifying the damage roll (dice) itself.
By math, on a hit and a failed save I roll 1d4+4+3d6. on a (2) + 4 + (4+5+3) the damage roll is a 18.
on a hit and a successful save, I roll the same dice for the same result. the save then halves the (4+5+6) but it doesn't change the roll (dice).
So, if it doesn't change the roll, then the dice are not gated behind or caused by the save, so therefore they have to be due to the hit.
Except that you are wrong and now you are trying to backpedal. You clearly said that poison damage is reliant on piercing damage being made. In the situation being discussed, this is objectively false. Nowhere in the rules for the attack in question does the poison damage rely on the target also taking piercing damage. And no, there is no discrepancy (again, this is completely of topic) since you are talking about a completely different scenario. You are arguing a strawman.
Yeah, this is where I'm seeing a disconnect between actual rules vs. played experience. We all have our own variations on things at our tables for the sake of efficiency, yet the order of operations given by the rules (as has been posted numerous times) is explicit that damage dice are all rolled at the same time. You do not resolve the piercing damage, make a saving throw, and then resolve poison damage; as far as the rules are concerned, it's all one damage roll, regardless of the method(s) you use to keep things organized at the table.
When there is a rider on an attack, it is part of that attack. Sneak Attack dice are part of the attack, Divine Smite dice are part of the attack, Hex damage is part of the attack, Thunderous Smite, Magic Weapon, Holy Weapon, etc are all part of the attack. An ability that requires you to spend a subsequent action/bonus action/reaction are not part of the attack. You might end up using Hellish Rebuke as a reaction to a different reaction to your original attack (happening at the same time on your turn), but that's not part of the attack. Witch Bolt only has one attack roll, and can crit on that attack roll. However, using your action on subsequent turns to inflict further damage is no longer part of that initial critical. The benefit of that spell is that you don't need to make an attack roll every turn after the initial roll, and the expense associated with that is losing the ability to crit again without expending another spell slot to recast the spell.
Saving throws are always in response to something which has occurred, and are done to mitigate/negate how that something affects the target. Being hit with the snake's bite attack causes piercing and poison damage. That occurs immediately from the attack roll. Any other damage dice from other possible riders to an attack roll also happen immediately. You then make a saving throw, if any of the riders also require it. You aren't making a saving throw to avoid being poisoned; you are poisoned (not the condition). You are making a saving throw to determine how your body responds to the poison that is now in you.
This is true for everything with a saving throw; you are responding to something that has actually occurred, potentially altering the end result. Consider the classic Fireball: why are you making a saving throw? To stop the fireball from happening? No, it already happened, and the caster rolls all of their dice immediately. You get to make a saving throw as a response, potentially only taking half (or none in conjunction with an evasion feature) of what they rolled, not to time travel.
[edit] To be clear, as far as I'm aware from my time with 5e, having both an attack roll and saving throw on the same attack/action is exceptionally rare. Before this thread kicked off, I wasn't aware of any instances of this kind. Even the notorious Ice Knife is clear about the spell actually having two entirely discrete effects that resolve independently of each other.
We know for a fact that the only time a critical hit is even possible is when there is an attack roll, and we know that because that's what the rule says.
We do not know for a fact that anything involving a saving throw cannot coincide with a critical hit. We know that because the rules do not ever make any references to it one way or another. I do believe they intended for damage with saving throws to be excluded from the ability to score a critical, but they didn't bother to actually write the sentence. Instead, they chose to draft the overwhelming majority of abilities to have either an attack roll or a saving throw.
Whether knowingly or not, they left the door open for this to happen, and they compounded that mistake when writing the snake's ability. Does it suck for that dead Paladin? Yeah, absolutely, I feel for them in my bones. Being on the receiving end of a crit always sucks, and especially so at low-level. Does it break the rest of the system? Nah, it's not the end of the world.
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.
The rules already did that. If you hit a target with heavy armor mastery with a poisoned weapon for 1 point of piercing damage (plus an Injury that does 2d4 save for half), he will take no damage because the trigger for an Injury type poison is doing damage. If a poisonous snake bites the same target for the same 1 point + 2d4 save for half, he will take 2d4 save for half, because the trigger is hitting.
There is a discrepancy because those situations because poisoning a weapon is adding a trait to that weapon that doesn't normally exist. D&D writers did not write a "poisoned" version of each weapon, nor is any weapon (save a dagger of venom ) poisoned by default; so they wrote a rule for poisoning a weapon in general. Creatures are different. a venomous creature doesn't have the option of including or excluding poison in its attacks (this is disregarding real world venomous creatures who can, but D&D creatures don't act that way). I would argue that adding said poison to a weapon (and subsequently to an attack) is the same as adding a smite, hex, or sneak attack, unless the rule for the weapon poison explicitly tied the damage to a save (by making the save negate damage rather than halve it, like in the magic weapon i mentioned above), and the poison damage on the weapon would be doubled on a crit.
That's definitely not true. Can you cite any rule that suggests that? Rolling all the damage at once is something someone may do for efficiency's sake, but the rules definitely don't say it. They say: "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." There's nothing to suggest that damage as a result of those "special effects" is rolled at the same time as the attack's damage. Indeed, you can't do it at the same time if the target has to make a saving throw first. You're welcome to delay the initial damage roll and do it all together if that's more convenient, but the actual rules are that you roll immediate damage immediately, and anything else will have its own rules.
That was actually the original question in this thread: do you apply two instances of damage or one. This matters for instant death due to massive damage, traits such as relentless endurance, and whether you might wind up with an automatic failed death check when dropped by a hit (because damage without the poison reduced you to zero hp). While we got bogged down in critical hits, the other question is actually fairly significant.
Sorry Sigred, but here your wrong. You are literally making a saving throw to stop that fireball's damage from happening. Closely read the Fireball description, it only allows you to roll your dice after the saving throw has been made.
"Each creature in a 20-foot-radius sphere centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw. A target takes 8d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one."
Notice you roll the saving throw first, and after you roll that saving throw, it tells you the damage dice.
Edit to make it clearer, yeah this is exactly what your talking about. Everyone rolls damage first for efficiently, as people rolling all dice at the same time is faster than rolling dice at different times, however it's not supported by the rules.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
While this is true, the damage is always 8d6 -- you halve the final damage, not the number of dice rolled.
That doesn't go against anything I said. Roll saving throw, roll damage, than apply half/full damage accordingly. That's the order the spell puts it in, that's RAW. As I said though RAF, rolling damage first is just more convenient. However this is the rules forums, so RAW takes priority.Edit: Oh I get what you mean, you just want me to fix the last statement and include the halving/not halving damage with that.
"Notice you roll the saving throw first, and after you roll that saving throw, it tells you the damage dice."
to
"Notice you roll the saving throw first, and after you roll that saving throw, it tells you the damage dice and if you need to half it or not."
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
Again, you seem to be very easily upset by people disagreeing with you. Maybe take a step back for a while?
There is no discrepancy what so ever. The fact that you can't handle two different kinds of attacks acting in two different ways doesn't change that. And it's not me doing this, it's literally the Rules As Written. You can't only claim RAW when it suits your purposes and RAW for the topic at hand says nothing about the target having to take piercing damage to also take the poison damage. The fact that you can't seem handle two different kinds of attacks acting in two different ways doesn't change that. So yes, what I said is completely abjectively true. It's not very difficult, different attacks have different rules because they are not the same.
And once more with feeling, tweets are not rules. At least not in D&D 5e.
I just want to remind people to do their best to remain on topic. It's very easy to get off topic when you bring in another rule as an example and then get into the weeds about that rule. But it's important to say on task for the question at hand.
With regards to that question, there hasn't been any RAW provided (including myself who wasn't able to find a rule supporting my theory), but a lot of repeated opinions and tangents. If things keep going in circles, and if they start to get hostile, we'll be forced to lock the thread.
Let's keep things pertinent, helpful and awesome
D&D Beyond moderator across forums, Discord, Twitch and YouTube. Always happy to help and willing to answer questions (or at least try). (he/him/his)
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat On - Mod Hat Off
Site Rules & Guidelines - Homebrew Rules - Looking for Players and Groups Rules
That is the rule for 'Injury' poisons, as defined in the DMG. It is not the rule for creature powers (nor for items such as a Dagger of Venom), which have no injury requirement. It could be they are intended to work the same, but as written, they don't. And given that every other location in the game (including effects that are nominally identical) ignores the poison rules in the DMG, I would say the anomaly is those rules, not everywhere else in the game
It's important to note that three things are being discussed here, some that relate to the original question and some that do not.
Creatures with secondary damage on attacks such as the Poisonous Snake:
Poison, Basic (vial) that say:
Injury poisons such as Drow Poison (Injury) that say:
D&D Beyond moderator across forums, Discord, Twitch and YouTube. Always happy to help and willing to answer questions (or at least try). (he/him/his)
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat On - Mod Hat Off
Site Rules & Guidelines - Homebrew Rules - Looking for Players and Groups Rules
And again, pointing out that you are wrong in your statements is not in any way aggresive. If you feel that it is, maybe you are taking this a bit too seriously and you would feel better if you step away for a bit?
Now you are moving the goalposts and you are also strawmanning. The tweets are in this case irrelevant since they are neither RAW nor RAI. The fact that you drop the "rules as" part does not change this. The designer clearly disagrees with you since he has implicitly stated that his tweets are not rules in D&D 5E. You are simply wrong on this matter.
How are the tweets not RAI? One of them literally says what they intended?
Thanks for the summary Davedamon! Based on these distinctions, here are my rulings/interpretations: First off, because crits involve damage dice, that is the basic "currency" I'm taking into consideration in each case, not numerical damage...
#1 (poisonous snake): The wording combines the secondary effect with the primary (", and.."), and nowhere in the rules does it describe how to combine/separate damage rolls from single attacks/actions with multiple effects. In the absence of such a ruling, you have to look at how the mechanics might separate effects. In this case, the mechanic is a save, and that save does not trigger or gate the damage (ie, determine damage dice used), instead creating a modifier applied after damage is calculated (per order of operations in the PHB), so, my logic is that the poison damage dice are part of the hit and can double on a crit.
#2 (basic poison): same as the above, but in this case the save does trigger and gate the damage (ie, determines if the extra dice are used or not, based on success/failure), so using the same logic as above the dice for the poison damage are not part of the hit and is not doubled on a crit
#3 (injury poison): the trigger is taking damage, so by logic the damage roll for the hit is resolved prior to the poison save and the damage rolls are clearly separated. Regardless if the save is for half damage or damage negation, its a separate roll not tied to the hit, and would not double on a crit
On some specialty cases: For ice knife, the wording of the spell clearly separates the attack roll and saving throw portions and damage ("hit or miss") so only the attack roll portion would crit. For witch bolt, I could see an argument either way (and have expressed a willingness to change my mind on this thread), but I'm going back to my original opinion that the damage rolls themselves are clearly separated (they occur on different turns), so only the first would double on a crit. On this one I'm open to other opinions though(especially since its such a lackluster spell) My other interpretation could be that you roll the damage only at the start and use the same result on all subsequent turns (in that case, the crit could carry over, but I'm pretty certain that is a less RAW ruling on how to calculate the damage of the spell than the other way)
For those that would say "thats too complicated, the rulings should be simpler" ignores that the writers chose to write each of these separately using different terms and mechanics, so a general ruling is practically impossible without considering the exact wording of each.
On the OPs other questions: for the poisonous snake, based on the above interpretations, the damage would be from one source with one roll, so massive damage might come into play especially on a crit, but if massive damage didn't kill them outright, it would drop them to unconsciousness but not trigger a first failed death save, or relentless endurance would leave them at 1 hp.
I believe I've seen you say that english is not your first language, but in english a comma is not by any means a "full stop", but instead (among other things) joins two otherwise independent clauses (that could grammatically stand on their own) together. I agree that "extra" or "plus" is often used to describe secondary damage, but in that case there is often not a modifier associated and the ",and.." is not a grammatically correct use as the wording for the secondary damage does not constitute a clause that could grammatically stand on its own. the saving throw in this case can be either a modifier or a trigger/gate for damage, which feeds into your second question below:
I'll look at the second example first. In that example, the basic poison requires a save for the damage roll to take place at all. Its not modifying the damage, its modifying the actual dice. In this way, it is a "gate" to the use of said dice. For example, on a hit with dagger with this poison applied, a failed save means 1d4 + STR/DEX + 1d4 poison, but a successful save means 1d4 + STR/DEX only. The save is an event that triggers the use of additional dice, so those dice are not due to the hit itself.
Now for the first example. In this one, the creatures poison requires a save to modify the damage only, not change the dice rolled. So it is not triggering damage rolls, nor is it gating it. For example, on a hit from the snake, a failed save means you take 1 piercing + 2d4 poison. On a successful save, you take 1 piercing + 2d4 poison (less 1/2 the 2d4 roll). Note that the actual dice do not change. the save does not trigger the use of the dice, nor does it change anything about the dice at all, so the dice cannot be said to be due to the save. If they aren't due to the save, they have to be due to the hit, since that is the last preceeding "event" per se. and since hits can crit, and the crit affects damage dice, there is logic in saying that all dice in this instance double as they are all tied to the hit, not the save.
the "same as above" comment referred to this statement from my post btw: "The wording combines the secondary effect with the primary (", and.."), and nowhere in the rules does it describe how to combine/separate damage rolls from single attacks/actions with multiple effects. In the absence of such a ruling, you have to look at how the mechanics might separate effects."
dice used on a Failed Save: 1d4 + 3d6 (damage roll). dice used on a Successful save: 1d4 + 3d6. save does not change the dice, only modifies the result. Crits are applied to the dice, not to the result, and the order of operations says roll dice first, then apply modifiers to result. if all dice above are rolled because of the hit (they are, the save does nothing to change them, add to them, or remove them), then they can double on a crit.
This is exactly the same wording as the snake, but with different dice. So the same ruling as the snake applies.
In this case, the damage from the attack is clearly resolved separately from the poison, as the trigger for the save in question is the actual damage from the weapon. this is a simple if/then statement. "If damage/ then save" means that the attacks damage has to resolve prior to the save occuring. This clarity in the order of operations is missing in the first two examples, but here it is clear; the attack roll and damage have resolved prior to the saving throw, so any doubling due to the critical hit has also resolved prior to the saving throw.
In this case the save is tied to the hit, but the 2d10 dice are tied entirely to the save (this is not true for the first two examples where the dice do not change due to the save). because the 2d10 dice are not tied directly to the hit, they aren't part of the crit.
I would also make a point of stating that, especially with non-game terms, grammar changes do not necessarily mean mechanical changes; sometimes they are simply the best and/or most readable way to write a sentence. the writers use "x damage plus y damage" in instances because using "x damage, and y damage" is grammatically incorrect, but the mechanics of the two statements are not really that different. similarly, "x damage plus the target must make a DC xx saving throw, taking..." while not grammatically incorrect necessarily, reads like a run-on sentence, and the easier way to write (and read it) is the separate the clauses and join them with the ", and..." which is both grammatically correct and easier to read while still adding the effects together.
But at this point there is no further use in arguing. Either you agree or you don't, and typing all of this out is getting, quite frankly, tiring. I feel that you think that your POV is the only valid one, but as pointed out by many others, the RAW on this is not universally clear, so there can be multiple valid interpretations. Barring a 5000 page PHB written in legalese with a glossary the size of the current PHB, these gaps in understanding are inevitable, and sometimes that means stating your piece and moving on, rather than railing against every post that disagrees or comes to an alternate conclusion. I wish you the best in your games.