Some questions from actual play

[Boarstorm]

No. The PHB is very specific that you do not roll for Critical Hits. By a strict interpretation of the rules, that means enhancement bonuses on weapons, feat bonuses, racial bonuses, etc do not apply to Critical Hits.

*sigh* No it doesn't.

The power/attack that critted retains it's [W] designation, meaning those things are added.

The difference is in how the power/effect is defined, not in whether you actually end up rolling the dice.

 

[Zurai]

*sigh* No it doesn't.

The power/attack that critted retains it's [W] designation, meaning those things are added.

The difference is in how the power/effect is defined, not in whether you actually end up rolling the dice.

No. [W] has nothing to do with crits, or spells wouldn't be able to crit. They don't do [W] damage. They do xdx damage. All the various enhancement bonuses in the game state "Add x damage when you roll damage". Critical Hits specifically say "Do not roll damage."

 

[Boarstorm]

Ok, [W] was a bad example. But the point I'm trying to make is that all those powers do damage based on die rolls -- a crit simply treats those dice as maximized. Because the power is defined as using xdy, or whatever, they get the bonuses.

Flat damage abilities, on the other hand, do not do damage based on die rolls, and so do not get the bonuses.

 

[Mistwell]

Ah, the first heated rules debate I have seen on 4e (I know there have been others, I just have not seen them).

In my opinion, Roll has a defined meaning here, and flat damage is not a roll. You don't add the stat to it, or magic item bonus/penalty.

It doesn't have to make visual sense, yet. Folks will come up with the visuals once we grok the rules more fully. The rules, however, do not support adding anything to fixed damage.

Nor is there any implied 0[W] roll that I can determine. They don't imply stuff like that in the rules, in general. You need a lot more support than pure speculation to support an interpretation like that. Particularly since the ramifications of such an implied rule are much more widespread that just this particular example.

 

[Zurai]

Ok, [W] was a bad example. But the point I'm trying to make is that all those powers do damage based on die rolls -- a crit simply treats those dice as maximized. Because the power is defined as using xdy, or whatever, they get the bonuses.

Again, No. There are strict, precise, not-debatable definitions for both when you apply bonus damage and for how you determine the damage from a critical hit. They are mutually incompatible from a strict rules perspective. "When you roll damage" and "Do not roll damage" are diametrical opposites. There is no overlap.

Note that I'm not advocating using just the base damage for criticals. I'm just pointing out that the rules have holes.

 

[Boarstorm]

Note that I'm not advocating using just the base damage for criticals. I'm just pointing out that the rules have holes.

Well, sure, if you go after the rulebook with a knife, you're bound to poke a few holes.

But I think the rules are plenty clear in this case, with the critical hit being an EXCEPTION (emphasized 'cuz of the whole exception-based-rules thing) to the rule of when you do and do not add bonus damage.

Deliberately obscuring the rules and taking things out of context in order to obfuscate the issue seems ... well, counter-productive to me.

 

[Zurai]

I don't see how pointing out blatantly obvious discrepancies in the rules is "going after them with a knife" or "deliberately obscuring the rules". Chill out, dude.

 

[Boarstorm]

Chill out? Bah, if I were angry, a mod would have already stepped in to slap a ban on me.

I'm saddened, though, that you didn't find the "poke holes with a knife" thing as amusing as I did. I mean, come on -- a metaphor that can be taken literally and still be meaningful? That **** is art!

I do, however, think that this discrepancy in the rules you point out is a non-issue brought up to fallaciously lend credence to the "add modifiers to flat damage" camp.

 

[Kordeth]

Again, No. There are strict, precise, not-debatable definitions for both when you apply bonus damage and for how you determine the damage from a critical hit. They are mutually incompatible from a strict rules perspective. "When you roll damage" and "Do not roll damage" are diametrical opposites. There is no overlap.

Note that I'm not advocating using just the base damage for criticals. I'm just pointing out that the rules have holes.

Actually, in this case, they don't. The specific rule on critical hit damage says "Rather than roll damage, determine the maximum damage you can roll with your attack." Since we've already established that weapon enhancements, feats, etc. are part of the damage you can roll, they apply to critical hits. The rules are, in fact, consistent.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Hmm, the 4e PH says that when I miss with any attack, I don't roll damage. That's a shortcut for saying that I roll 0[W] damage. Therefore, looks like I should apply all my miscellaneous and magical modifiers as damage to my target whenever I miss with any attack.