Difference of Damage Roll and just Damage

[BobTheNob]

I have never really "micro-read" the text on this issue because I thought it was just an understood rule of thumb. Roll = add bonus.

Is it right/wrong, better/worse? Dont know. What I will say is this, it works, and it sets a clear line when to add bonus's, which really helps with understanding of limitations between GM and players.

To me, that is far more important than micro-interpretation of RAW

 

[DracoSuave]

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".

But the rules have already defined what a roll is. It's the roll of a dice. And nothing in that section acts as an exception to that rule... the only exception that -does- exist is the rule for critical damage, which treats it as tho you rolled maximum.

I submit that if you do not understand the original rule on what a roll is, you might be confused by what a damage roll is. I also submit to you that if you think that every rule needs to be reprinted with every use of that rule, you might be confused by what a damage roll is. I would conclude from that, the individual involved, does not understand the basic fundamentals of how rules work, and their opinion does not have much weight in a rules discussion.

Either that, or they are not arguing from an honest standpoint... they are arguing from a dishonest one that seeks to misinterpret the rules on purpose, for gain, rather than out of legitimate interpretation.

 

[Shin Okada]

But the rules have already defined what a roll is. It's the roll of a dice. And nothing in that section acts as an exception to that rule... the only exception that -does- exist is the rule for critical damage, which treats it as tho you rolled maximum.

Actually, not so clearly, at least within PHB. AFAIK the closest entry is the column in P.08 "Game Dice". And actually, there seems to be no clear entry in pre-Rules Compendium books which specifically define what the "roll" is, what the "die/dice roll" is or what the "damage roll" is. Please correct me if I am wrong. Because that is what I was looking for.

I submit that if you do not understand the original rule on what a roll is, you might be confused by what a damage roll is. I also submit to you that if you think that every rule needs to be reprinted with every use of that rule, you might be confused by what a damage roll is. I would conclude from that, the individual involved, does not understand the basic fundamentals of how rules work, and their opinion does not have much weight in a rules discussion.

Either that, or they are not arguing from an honest standpoint... they are arguing from a dishonest one that seeks to misinterpret the rules on purpose, for gain, rather than out of legitimate interpretation.

As a long-time role playing gamer and player of D&D, I tend to agree with you how the rules of D&D SHOULD BE interpreted.

But that does not mean that everyone DO interpret rules like that, or it is the only possible logical reading, when someone trying to read a text.

And at least I have just heard that a fellow DM has met a player who argued the different interpretation, then the DM tried to show the place which clearly defined what the damage roll (or roll) is (without having Rules Compendium at his hands) and took some delay within a gaming session, and failed to show the player a clear evidence.

Then it is already pointed out that WotC has added a clear definition in the Essential line. For me, it seems to be the evidence that there were certain amount of people who did not just say "Yep, rolling is to roll dice, thus if you don't roll at least one die, that is not a damage roll."