Difference of Damage Roll and just Damage

[Shin Okada]

I have been thinking a damage calculation which involves some die roll is a damage roll and which does not involves it is just a damage. Thus something modifies "damage roll" affects on the former and not the latter.

Thus,

# Most attack's initial damage gets bonuses to damage rolls.
# Some attack's initial damage, which does not involve a die roll, such as Furious Smash or Magic Missile, cannot be modified by bonuses to damage rolls.
# Some other damage may or may not be modified by bonuses to damage rolls, depend on if that involves a die roll or not.

But now I am not sure if those rules are just in my brain or clearly stated by some rule text or clarification.

Would some one please give guide to such a text, if any?

 

[OnlineDM]

I'll admit that I'm not exactly sure what you're asking, but I can at least point you toward 222 of the Rules Compendium:

"When most attacks deal damage, they do so through a damage roll: a roll of dice to determine damage."

Ergo, if dice aren't being rolled for damage, it's not a damage roll, as you said.

If you have some power or effect that says you get +2 to damage rolls, for instance, this does not apply to any damage you deal that doesn't involve rolling dice (Magic Missile, ongoing 5 damage, a zone that deals 5 damage to creatures that enter it, etc.).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Right, that's correct.

Now, there are some damage bonuses that apply universally whether it is a damage roll or not, but you have to look at that on a case-by-case basis. Most of the common sources of extra damage only apply to damage rolls. For instance enhancement bonuses only apply to damage rolls, which is the reason for the funny wording in MM that specifically grants extra damage equal to the enhancement bonus of an implement used to cast it.

Basically most static non-roll damage is an additional minor effect, like the 'splash' damage from Cleave, so it isn't going to be increased.

 

[Shin Okada]

So, pre-Rules Compendium, the definition of "Damage Roll" was just widely accepted RAI Interpretation and not something clearly stated by RAW?

It may sounds a rather too strict RAW question but I was asked this question from a fellow DM which is not yet adopted Essentials Line (that group is "pending" to use Essentials line until more of them, at least 1 or 2 more player books, DM kit and Monster Vault are released.)

He is asked it by player and wanted to show him some rule text or FAQ which says that only something involves actual die roll is damage roll. But could not find one.

Yeah, a DM is always right and can make a reasonable "RAI" interpretation. But it is sometimes not enough when he is DMing at a CON or in rather open gaming club which one DM cannot make a cannon for that group.

 

[OnlineDM]

I just reached for the Rules Compendium because it was more convenient. However, in looking at my PHB1, it does look like "damage roll" wasn't as explicitly spelled out. Damage is on page 276 of the PHB. It doesn't really get into the details of defining exactly what does and does not count as a "damage roll." It's vague, frankly.

If you're looking for a little more confirmation, look at the Rules Updates for Power of Destruction. It points out that "grasping shards... doesn't have a damage roll until level 21." And if you look at Grasping Shards, you'll see that on a hit it does Wisdom modifier damage and slows the target, but at level 21 it deals 1d10+Wisdom modifier damage. Pre-21 static damage -> not a damage roll. Post 21 dice-based damage -> now, according to the Rules Updates, it's a damage roll. It's a long way to go, but it's clear.

 

[DracoSuave]

A damage roll is when you roll for damage.

A roll is pretty clear: It's when you roll the dice. A damage roll is when you roll dice for damage. It's pretty much not needed to have a definition: a roll is not when you aren't rolling dice. No dice? No roll. Critical hits are a specific exception; they don't involve a damage roll but are treated as though you rolled maximum on a damage roll, thus get the bonuses.

So: Are you rolling dice for damage? Yes? It's a damage roll. No? It's not a damage roll.

Pretty simple, actually.

 

[Shin Okada]

Pretty simple, actually.

Yep. I do agree with that interpretation. And as a DM, I do say so even before the release of Rules Compendium.

But sometimes, people has their own opinion, even though that interpretation is not accepted by majority. And when it happens, it may require some effort for a DM to convince one who has a different opinion. And the very fact that "The DM has convinced the player." may make a bad mood amongst the play group, in some degree.

It is easy to say "Your DM is always right." But the very existence of this phrase is showing that this kind of "somewhat not clear by RAW" problems are not-so-light burden to many DMs.

I guess that is why WotC made this issue clear in Rules Compendium. And that is why many of the game designers are trying to reduce the need or RAI interpretation as possible.

 

[Merkuri]

Playing devil's advocate... is a mundane crit (no magic weapons or weapons that do special damage on a crit) a damage roll? You're not rolling anything.

 

[DracoSuave]

Playing devil's advocate... is a mundane crit (no magic weapons or weapons that do special damage on a crit) a damage roll? You're not rolling anything.

Yes, because the crit explicitly causes you to treat it as tho you rolled maximum on the dice. It treats you as tho you rolled a damage roll, which is good enough for the rules to apply bonuses to damage rolls.

But sometimes, people has their own opinion, even though that interpretation is not accepted by majority. And when it happens, it may require some effort for a DM to convince one who has a different opinion. And the very fact that "The DM has convinced the player." may make a bad mood amongst the play group, in some degree.

As a rebuttal:

How can 'damage roll' be misinterpreted? To me, misinterpreting 'roll for damage' is like 'misinterpreting' attack rolls, or something absolutely basic. I just don't see how it could possibly be genuinely interpreted any other way. I could see a DM making a houserule to except it, but I could not see, for example, a player trying to argue that magic missile has a damage roll, or that ongoing damage does...

It's too simple a concept to really misinterpret.

 

[Shin Okada]

How can 'damage roll' be misinterpreted? To me, misinterpreting 'roll for damage' is like 'misinterpreting' attack rolls, or something absolutely basic. I just don't see how it could possibly be genuinely interpreted any other way. I could see a DM making a houserule to except it, but I could not see, for example, a player trying to argue that magic missile has a damage roll, or that ongoing damage does...

Ok, first of all, this is not my interpretation nor opinion.

But as a kind of guy who tend to admit at least the existence of various POSSIBLE interpretations themselves, I will write from "opposite" side here.

Well, in PHB, the only rule text which really define or describe the rule term "damage roll" is in PHB P.276 "Damage" part. And that part is a sub part of "Attack Results". "Attack Results" rule text is assuming that a hit attack deals and/or special effects. Then the next rule is "Damage". And that part only describe about "damage roll" and there is no mention about fixed damage, or difference between rolled damage and non-rolled damage. Thus it is POSSIBLE for someone to say, a calculation of damage is, no matter if it involves a roll or not, called "damage roll".