Class Acts: Duelist Rogue

[Jack99]

Are you arguing rules on that, or just how you want it to work? *curious* If the latter, sure, that's fine and probably intended. I assume the same would apply to a critical-ed Furious Smash (crit damage dice) and horned helm Knockdown Assault charge (1d6 from helm)?

If the former, can you provide a rules cite since this has come up in some LFR games.

A lot of people misread page 57, which causes confusion.

 

[Shroomy]

You know what is probably the most "broken" thing in this article is the Duelist's Panache feat. An Artful Dodger's Acrobatic skill bonus is going to be sick!

 

[MrAlgothi]

Great Article, lots of love for those whom buckle swashes. However, I am really rather curious how often the attack granted by Shimmering Blade was intended to be used. The way it was written makes me feel like it was meant to be used as often as the trigger happens until the End of the Next Turn, but its fairly ambiguous.

 

[Salamandyr]

You know what is probably the most "broken" thing in this article is the Duelist's Panache feat. An Artful Dodger's Acrobatic skill bonus is going to be sick!

Could be but I doubt it. Since you're going to be in melee, by yourself, a lot, a duellist rogue is going to want hit points. This just frees you up to put some points in CON instead of keeping Strength high for skill purposes.

 

[keterys]

Well, I think that the Wizard CA from earlier this week clarified the issue. Duelist's Flurry has a "Hit" line, so any effects that trigger on a hit (like critical damage dice) would apply, but since there is no damage roll, any effects that would require a roll (like brutal damage) would not apply.

Right... and the argument is that sneak attack damage of 2d8 is a damage roll, involving the rolling of dice, for damage.

Similarly the Str + d6 damage you do for a horned helm on a Knockdown Assault charge.

When asked to find a rule to dispute that, I couldn't provide one. Obviously DMs can rule however they want, though. Except those who can't

 

[Shroomy]

Right... and the argument is that sneak attack damage of 2d8 is a damage roll, involving the rolling of dice, for damage.

Similarly the Str + d6 damage you do for a horned helm on a Knockdown Assault charge.

When asked to find a rule to dispute that, I couldn't provide one. Obviously DMs can rule however they want, though. Except those who can't

That argument breaks down if you can't get your sneak attack off with that power, and besides, if you look at the relevant PHB passage (taken from the Compendium), it makes no mention of extra damage dice gained through class features:

Roll the damage indicated in the power description. If you’re using a weapon for the attack, the damage is some multiple of your weapon damage dice.

Add the ability modifier specified in the power description. Usually, this is the same ability modifier you used to determine your base attack bonus for the attack.

In addition, any of the following factors might apply to a damage roll:
• Racial or feat bonuses
• An enhancement bonus (usually from a magic weapon or an implement)
• An item bonus
• A power bonus
• Untyped bonuses

Its pretty clear that damage bonuses are part of the damage roll, but extra damage dice gained through sneak attack, warlock's curse, or hunter's quarry would not apply.

 

[keterys]

That argument breaks down if you can't get your sneak attack off with that power

It's a power that grants you your sneak attack damage...

it makes no mention of extra damage dice gained through class features:

Which makes things more clear how? Mentioning those would be helpful

Its pretty clear that damage bonuses are part of the damage roll, but extra damage dice gained through sneak attack, warlock's curse, or hunter's quarry would not apply.

So, your argument is that when you roll damage for sneak attack, warlock's curse, hunter's quarry, or horned helm, you are not, in fact, making a damage roll?

P57 PHB 'Some powers add modifiers to attack rolls or damage rolls. These modifiers apply to any roll of the dice,'

If they are actually separate and special damage rolls, signified by a game term (presumably 'extra')... then there should be a special exclusion from bonuses which apply to damage rolls.

Because at the moment it's a little muddy what difference there is between
Power: 1d6 + Str damage
Power & Item: Str + 1d6 damage

Which is why I'm hoping for something unequivocal to point potential players at.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Are you arguing rules on that, or just how you want it to work? *curious* If the latter, sure, that's fine and probably intended. I assume the same would apply to a critical-ed Furious Smash (crit damage dice) and horned helm Knockdown Assault charge (1d6 from helm)?

If the former, can you provide a rules cite since this has come up in some LFR games.

Well, if it helps at all, I'm one of the admins for LFR. Not that I can find an exact source. However, I'm fairly certain the intent behind the rules applies here. You aren't allowed to add these sorts of modifiers to an attack that doesn't have a damage roll:

Some powers add modifiers to attack rolls or
damage rolls. These modifiers apply to any roll of
the dice, but not to ongoing damage or other static,
nonvariable effects.

The idea being that any power that does a static number like "dex mod" doesn't add enhancement bonus and so on. It seems kind of a "hack" around that intention if you can add it simply by putting on a Horned Helm. I believe the "roll of the dice" the paragraph is referring to is the one called for by the power. Anything that gets added on after the "damage roll" doesn't get static modifiers.

It is worded poorly, I admit. But that wouldn't be the first place there was something worded poorly in the book.

Keep in mind for LFR you need to follow the rules, but you are empowered to make decisions when the rules are unclear or you believe the intent of the rules are different than what people are using them for. I've used this before while running games and will continue to.

This case fails on my standard test: Does the rule cause unintended consequences? In this case, it allows a magic item or class feature to add damage that is not specified in the magic item or class feature. If a Half-Elf takes this power as a Dilettante power and does not have sneak attack then this power doesn't add the enhancement bonus of your weapon. But if he has a magic item that adds a dice of damage then it does. If he is multiclassed into Rogue and adds his sneak attack then it does, if he is a Ranger and adds Quarry then it does.

That just seems wonky and unintended to me. Whether your weapon does extra damage shouldn't be dependent on whether a creature is your Quarry. The system is designed to be elegant and make sense to people. If a rule requires you to jump through hoops to explain, it probably in an unintended side effect.

 

[Shroomy]

Could be but I doubt it. Since you're going to be in melee, by yourself, a lot, a duellist rogue is going to want hit points. This just frees you up to put some points in CON instead of keeping Strength high for skill purposes.

I can see your point when it comes to the Athletics skill, but their Acrobatics skill is going to have a big bonus since they can add their Charisma modifier to it; a Dex skill with a Dex primary task, adding their secondary ability score modifier to the skill...I'm kind of wondering if this was done to allow rogues to upgrade their armor and thus mitigate some of the armor check penalty.

 

[keterys]

Eh, that's probably enough of a cite for me at the table. That said, powers do things without having a Hit (Effect) or multiple times in single Hit (Hellish Rebuke) so making rules arguments based on the example that the rules say you roll damage once for powers that hit and have a damage roll explicitly in the power description is... shaky.

Especially when other powers can make those powers into damage rolls, such as the White Lotus paragon path and Bravo multiclass power swaps. I assume stances like Force the Battle that just add 1W to at-will powers you'd also count as not a damage roll?

The argument for excluding Weapon Focus or Enhancement is a lot easier than some others, too. After all, a Warlord power that gives you '+5 to damage rolls' generically would apply _many times_ to something like Curse of the Black Frost or a zone when someone is slid around in it. So arguing about intentions surrounding damage in those circumstances quickly gets... shaky, again.

Which is why I was really hoping for a rock solid rules citation. And barring that, for someone official in the game to _make one_. They've done some good stuff with things like PH2 appendices... I'm all for the game continuing to do such