The +2 damage is not an effect, it's a conditional bonus.
Gaining THP from a hit is an effect, though, and therefore it happens last. So at the time you apply damage, you don't yet have any THPs.
Broken things errata'ed, July 2009
The +2 damage is not an effect, it's a conditional bonus.
Gaining THP from a hit is an effect, though, and therefore it happens last. So at the time you apply damage, you don't yet have any THPs.
Not to mention, if you DID get the temp hit points at some "hit" stage that occurs prior to the "damage" stage, at which point you'd get the bonus damage in the "damage" stage, then you'd always get the bonus damage. The only time you wouldn't receive the bonus damage would be on hits that deal damage on a miss, but still use the regular damage expression to calculate the damage. So, daily powers that do 1/2 on a miss.
I don't believe that WotC intended that you receive the bonus damage on all attacks except those that are misses and which deal 1/2 damage on a miss. If they intended that, they would have said so.
I think that is a far more powerful argument than arguing for the constant application of the bonus damage due to slight wording differences between different powers and inferences drawn from said wording differences. This inference is much, much stronger.
I don't believe that WotC intended that you receive the bonus damage on all attacks except those that are misses and which deal 1/2 damage on a miss. If they intended that, they would have said so.
I think that is a far more powerful argument than arguing for the constant application of the bonus damage due to slight wording differences between different powers and inferences drawn from said wording differences. This inference is much, much stronger.
WalterKovacs
First Post
To play Devil's Advocate:
They do not have step 5: apply damage, step 6: apply other effects.
Applying damage and other effects is one single step. They couldn't really say "apply other effects and damage" now could they? So, both things occur at the 'same time'.
Now, as has been stated by Cadfan, if you modified the damage whenever you'd hit, you would always deal the extra damage (except for a non-invigorating daily that damages on a miss). So it seems unlikely they'd make something like "when you have thp do extra damage" if NOT dealing the extra damage would be the exception.
They might just clarify it as "if you had thp before you attacked" ... since the damage boost is now something that you get BECAUSE you still have thp (and thus when you hit, you are getting fewer thp than you normally would.)
In many ways it's a mitigation/reward type thing. Just like the combat challenge allows you to do extra damage (via more attacks) when your marked target goes after an ally ... you get extra damage if they don't go after you to get rid of your thp. It's a way to punish enemies for NOT attacking you (which is a good defender ability ... being a striker WHEN the enemy ignores you). It's basically the opposite of the Censure of Retribution that the Avenger has.
Admitedly, the extra damage may not be enough to convince enemies that letting you have it is a bad thing ... in which case, the AC drop is suboptimal. A hammer rhythm battlerager fighter would be interesting though ... dealing damage and getting thp even when they miss with their invigorating powers
Nail
First Post
Exactly.
Enemies aren't liable to gang up on you just to eliminate that extra +2 damage. That's not even average striker damage. Moreover, it's likely that just the one enemy you've marked (you are a fighter, after all) can take care of those THPs with a hit.
....and if you are a hammer fighter, you are hitting a bit less often, and thus have fewer THPs to burn through.
Although I appreciate the effort of kertys and others, I really don't see a chain + hammer BRV fighter as a good choice anymore (in heroic tier, where I will do all of my adventuring), for the reasons I laid out in an earlier post. Oh well.
Last edited:
MyISPHatesENWorld
First Post
It's one step, but you read a power in order. And in this case, as this isn't an "Effect:" in the defined game term sense of reading a power which is listed in a sequence It could reasonably be stated that the components of the trigger 1) Hitting (before damage and most other effects) and possibly 2) Invigorating Keyword (before pretty much everything) are met before damage, conditions and most "Effects" are applied.
It seems just as unlikely they'd include a bonus that you wouldn't get enough to be worth giving up better armor. And seems unlikely, either way, is about as meaningful in a discussion as what the rule actually is as claiming to know the intent of something, when WotC employees who designed material can't always explain the intent of changes to their original design (Double Weapons) or their clear explanations of intent are contradicted officially (Rain of Blows).
The credibilty of statements (from non-WotC staff) that claim to know the intent or that some intent is implied and that intent they "know" or "is implied" changes what the rule actually says and means are as credible as statements that the intent - "known" or "implied" - meant Dwarven Weapon Proficiency didn't grant proficiency in superior hammers and axes or Swordmages couldn't reap the superior benefits of Warding and Versatile.
They didn't re-write the paragraph regarding the bonus damage, and the actual errata is:
"Whenever you hit an enemy with a melee or a close attack, you gain temporary hit points equal to your Constitution modifier, plus any temporary hit points normally granted by the power.
If you use an invigorating fighter attack power and miss every target with it, you gain temporary hit points equal to your Constitution modifier."
In the previous version, they specifically felt the need to include language that allocated the temp hit points after the attack against the battlerager was resolved. No such language is present here. That may or may not mean something. It may mean they meant for the HPs to be granted immediately after the hit. It may mean there is something in the language of the ability that means something to the author or editor that makes it unnecessary or redundant. It may have been removed due to formatting restraints on reprints.
They might, but they didn't in the update. And there is no way of really knowing what the answer they give, if any, is going to be. It may specifically follow the RAW, it may create a new game term, it may claim that no errata or FAQ is needed because things happen in a certain way even though that way isn't clearly defined in the books.
Certain phrases and words seem to have a specific meaning to people who work for WotC that isn't explicitly stated in the books.
Last edited:
keterys
First Post
Although I appreciate the effort of kertys and others, I really don't see a chain + hammer BRV fighter as a good choice anymore (in heroic tier, where I will do all of my adventuring), for the reasons I laid out in an earlier post. Oh well.
Let's be clear here - the dwarf fighter is _probably_ using a hammer anyways. He spent his feat (dwarven weapon training) and he gets the equivalent of +3 damage. It's just what dwarven melee characters almost invariably do. Add in Brash Strike and some other powers that key off Con and there's all kinds of reasons for them to do that.
So, is it worth -1 AC to get +2 damage extra when he has temp hp? Maybe, that's up to the dwarf to figure out. It's a real choice.
Nail
First Post
...if the fighter is a dwarf (and ignoring the -1 atk for chosing a low proficiency weapon will mean fewer THPs , conditions, OA stops, CC attack hits, etc).
thecasualoblivion
First Post
Unless your Dwarf Fighter began play with 18 Str, like mine. My RPGA Dwarf Fighter had 18Str, 15Con, 10Dex, 8Int, 15Wis, 10Cha at start. He wasn't a Battlerager though.
keterys
First Post
And they've already made that decision separately, if they wanted to use dwarven weapon training and deal a bunch more damage. They're all separate decisions with concrete choices.
Psikus
Explorer
Although I appreciate the effort of kertys and others, I really don't see a chain + hammer BRV fighter as a good choice anymore (in heroic tier, where I will do all of my adventuring), for the reasons I laid out in an earlier post. Oh well.
As one of the advocates of hammers as valid BRV weapons, I'd like to point out that hammer+scale (or, more often than not, hammer+plate) is far from worthless. If nothing else, Brash Strike should be a very compelling argument to use hammers/axes vs swords, once you are commited to Con.
I'm not a fan of the damage bonus in light armor, though. It does have its uses, particularly in multiattack or close burst scenarios, and it will be up for most OAs and Combat Challenges. I can see a non-shield battlerager going in chain at lower levels, until they can afford to get plate proficiency. At paragon and beyond, I think the bonus gets completely outclassed by the penalty.
BTW, I just realized how cute Commander's Strike has become with post-errata Battleragers - extra attack AND damage prevention!
Similar Threads
