Criticals and double dice

[Jester David]

That is a reasonable (IMO, the best) interpretation. But it is not stated in the rules.

Would you have dealt the poison damage if the attack had missed? No. Then you can legitimately claim that the poison damage is "part of the attack's damage."

They’re related. But the extra poison or damage is a separate effect. There is a hit that triggers a secondary effect that carries additional damage.

If you hit a barrel of black powder or oil with a flaming arrow, the resulting explosion is directly the result of the first attack. Nothing happens if it misses. But it’s not the same attack. They are causally related, but not the same thing.

If a red dragon hits a creature and pushes them back ten feet off a cliff, the falling damage is a direct result of the attack, as it would not exist without it. But the damage is not part of the attack.
Ditto if you slam an enemy into a wall of fire or blade barrier.

 

[jaelis]

They’re related. But the extra poison or damage is a separate effect. There is a hit that triggers a secondary effect that carries additional damage.

If you hit a barrel of black powder or oil with a flaming arrow, the resulting explosion is directly the result of the first attack. Nothing happens if it misses. But it’s not the same attack. They are causally related, but not the same thing.

If a red dragon hits a creature and pushes them back ten feet off a cliff, the falling damage is a direct result of the attack, as it would not exist without it. But the damage is not part of the attack.
Ditto if you slam an enemy into a wall of fire or blade barrier.

This is why I agree it is the best interpretation. You have to draw a line at some point between the attack itself and other effects that are consequences of the attack. A new roll (save or attack) is a sensible place to do so. I would encourage anyone to play that way, and it seems to be the designers’ intent.

But none of that makes it magically appear as actual rules text

 

[ccs]

A. Do you simply sum up the damage and then double the total?
B. Or do you roll the dice, sum it up, double it, and then add static modifiers?

We already agree neither is RAW, so that's not why I'm asking.

I'm asking because it seems plenty of people "just double it" without realizing that doubles the static modifiers (such as Strength ability modifier), which is inappropriate if all you intend is to "save time" (that is sticking to RAI even though distribution is coarser).

Yes, A. That's what I said.

And we're fully aware that's not RAW or RAI according to WoTC. It works fine for our group & that's all that matters in the end.

 

[Mistwell]

Yes, exactly.

If I was on social media, I would put the following questions to Crawford:

1. The Arrow of Slaying adds 6d10 damage if a Con DC 17 save is failed. Since this damage is not magical or poison but "more piercing", is it still secondary and not extra damage, simply because its gated behind a save?

2. Where in the rules can I find the language you draw upon when you say criticals double extra damage but not secondary damage (damage behind a subsequent saving throw or attack).

I asked him your first question on Twitter (no room for both questions). I will let you know if he replies, and will follow up with your second question if he does.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

I would really like to see a definitive answer on this. I answered one of the Rpg.stackexchange questions but my answer got voted off the bottom, slightly unfairly, I thought.

I feel that if the damage has a necessary condition of "this attack hits you" then it is "involved in the attack" and its dice should be doubled on a critical hit. If missing the attack means that there is no way to apply the damage then how can it not be considered involved?

I have a particular issue with Crawford's tweet, "Any damage dice delivered by a critical hit—as opposed to a saving throw—are rolled twice." In the case of poison or arrow or slaying, the damage is not "opposed to" a hit; it is "in addition to" a hit. I don't think Mr Crawford understands the question. In other words, we all know that damage delivered by acid splash is not doubled and damage delivered by chill touch is doubled. What we want to know is what happens when there is both an attack roll and a saving throw, and I don't think anyone has answered this.

Additionally, additional damage is not always gated. Consider a giant spider's bite. The poison damage from that is not "Save or take poison damage" (gating the damage behind a saving throw); it is "Take poison damage, save for half." Whether or not you make a saving throw, you are going to take poison damage.

And a related question: Does a critical hit during booming blade double the damage taken next round if the target moves?

 

[Horwath]

I like the rule of rolling normal damage then doubling it.

Add any extra after that is needed. I.E. halforc racial.

 

[Arial Black]

I think the current wording is enough:-

"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."

So the 'damage dice' that get to be rolled twice are the damage dice belonging to that 'attack'.

'Attack' is a defined game term, and means a game effect resolved by an attack roll (specific exceptions exist). You make the attack roll, and if it hits it (usually) does damage.

That damage is the 'damage dice' belonging to that attack. If, without any other roll being required, that attack roll directly results in more damage dice being delivered by that attack roll, then those extra dice also belong to that attack roll and are also rolled twice on a crit.

But some effects, while only being triggered by a successful hit, do not belong to that attack roll but to another cause (such as a second attack roll or a saving throw, or by ongoing effects that continue over multiple rounds), then those dice do not belong to that original attack roll that scored a crit, and therefore do not get rolled twice.

If an attack said something like, "1d8+3 piercing, plus 2d6 poison", then ALL the dice would be rolled twice because ALL those damage dice belong to that single attack roll that scored the hit. The result would be 2d8+3 piercing, plus 4d6 poison.

But if an attack said something like, "1d8+3 piercing, and the target takes an additional 2d6 poison, DC 13 Constitution save for half", then only the piercing damage belongs to the attack roll while the poison damage belongs to the saving throw (whether the save makes or fails is irrelevant) and so the poison damage here does not get rolled twice. The result would be 2d8+3 piercing, and the target takes an additional 2d6 poison, DC 13 Constitution save for half.

So the existing language is enough: the "attack's damage dice", i.e. "the damage dice belonging to that attack roll" (as opposed to a different attack roll or a saving throw or continuing effect) are what gets rolled twice.

No errata needed.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

So the 'damage dice' that get to be rolled twice are the damage dice belonging to that 'attack'.

The rules do not use the word "belong" - they use the word "involves" which means something different.

 

[CapnZapp]

So the existing language is enough: the "attack's damage dice", i.e. "the damage dice belonging to that attack roll" (as opposed to a different attack roll or a saving throw or continuing effect) are what gets rolled twice.

No errata needed.

Thank you for your errata. Your proposed language would indeed solve the issue. Now the only task remaining is get it inside the PHB.

 

[fjw70]

Thank you for your errata. Your proposed language would indeed solve the issue. Now the only task remaining is get it inside the PHB.

Just curious, why is getting this into an official errata so important to you? Are people you playing with having heated arguments about this?