Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Syrsuro" data-source="post: 4639814" data-attributes="member: 58162">Although similar in some ways, I see that as a different thing. I see that as a variable effect contingent upon the ongoing damage, not on the original attack. I know its a subtle difference, but it's sufficient in my mind to suggest a different ruling. Among the differences is that the damage is not coincidental with the attack but rather occurs on subsequent turns. If it had been written: "... and 2d10 ongoing lightning damage. While this power's ongoing damage is in effect, any ally of the target that starts its turn within 3 squares of the target takes the same quantity of lightning damage as the original target." then I might have considered it to be comparable.  Likewise On Pain of Death: It is a different matter - a condition is imposed that has the potential for damage. Two Weapon Eviscerate (and others) is a more interesting question. I would say (in the absence of a contradictory rule/ruling) that if both are criticals the damage is maximized, but not if only one is a critical.  However, a persuasive player might be able to convince me that only the second hit need be a critical (assuming the first was a hit). Maybe.(Essentially by arguing that the first hit created the opportunity, but the second hit did the extra damage). I guess it depends on whether you see the two attacks as truely simultaneous or following each other in quick succession within the brief span of an attack action. Carl</blockquote>

Verification