D&D 5E hexblade curse damage bonus with multiple damage types

[Charlaquin]

That doesn’t demonstrate what you claim it does, though. The individual things that are added to the damage roll tells you what dice are what damage type. That doesn’t interact at all with the question of whether they’re one damage roll or two.

But they’re literally two separate physical instances of rolling one or more dice to determine the amount of damage dealt by two separate game effects. What definition of “damage roll” are you using that would treat 1d8 piercing damage and 1d6 necrotic damage as the same roll?

The only thing I can think of that is actually separate is effects that add damage when you crit, because they specifically add damage that is outside of the crit, and thus separate from it. If an effect instead adds to the damage toll directly, it is part of that damage roll.

...what?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

But they’re literally two separate physical instances of rolling one or more dice to determine the amount of damage dealt by two separate game effects. What definition of “damage roll” are you using that would treat 1d8 piercing damage and 1d6 necrotic damage as the same roll?


...what?

The damage roll is 1d8 piercing damage plus 1d6 necrotic damage plus modifiers. That’s literally what it is. I cannot fathom how you could be coming to some other conclusion. There isn’t even precedent that I can think of for the reading that you’re advocating, and I can’t figure out what possibly reasoning links the premise to the conclusion.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Like...there is no secondary point of determination as to whether the target takes the necrotic damage. It’s literally part of the same attack, or spell, or other effect. It’s a single instance of taking damage.

 

[Charlaquin]

The damage roll is 1d8 piercing damage plus 1d6 necrotic damage plus modifiers. That’s literally what it is. I cannot fathom how you could be coming to some other conclusion. There isn’t even precedent that I can think of for the reading that you’re advocating, and I can’t figure out what possibly reasoning links the premise to the conclusion.

Like...there is no secondary point of determination as to whether the target takes the necrotic damage. It’s literally part of the same attack, or spell, or other effect. It’s a single instance of taking damage.

The question isn’t if there are multiple points of determination as to whether the target takes damage. A damage roll occurs after such determination. You have two separate sets of rules each instructing you to roll dice to determine an amount of damage to be dealt to a creature (i.e. a damage roll). That both sets of instructions tell you to roll the dice when you hit the creature with an attack is immaterial to the question of whether or not the damage rolls are the same, and I cannot fathom how you could interpret them as being the same. They are very literally two separate acts of rolling dice to determine damage, each dictated by separate rules parcels, and each assigning different damage types to the values determined by the rolling of the dice. In what world could they possibly be considered the same roll?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The question isn’t if there are multiple points of determination as to whether the target takes damage. A damage roll occurs after such determination. You have two separate sets of rules each instructing you to roll dice to determine an amount of damage to be dealt to a creature (i.e. a damage roll). That both sets of instructions tell you to roll the dice when you hit the creature with an attack is immaterial to the question of whether or not the damage rolls are the same, and I cannot fathom how you could interpret them as being the same. They are very literally two separate acts of rolling dice to determine damage, each dictated by separate rules parcels, and each assigning different damage types to the values determined by the rolling of the dice. In what world could they possibly be considered the same roll?

In the world we live in, where they’re both damage dealt as a direct result of landing the same damaging effect. Weapon, hunters Mark, sneak attack, hexblade’s curse, and divine smite, if all loaded onto the same attack, are all one damage roll.

 

[Charlaquin]

In the world we live in, where they’re both damage dealt as a direct result of landing the same damaging effect.

Can you provide any evidence supporting the notion that whether or not they were dealt as a direct result of landing a single attack* has any bearing on whether or not they are separate damage rolls?

*they are clearly not the same damaging effect - hex and hexblade’s curse are inarguably separate effects.

Weapon, hunters Mark, sneak attack, hexblade’s curse, and divine smite, if all loaded onto the same attack, are all one damage roll.

By my reading those are all, in a very literal sense, separate dice rolls made to determine damage, which in the absence of any formal rules definition for the term, is the literal English meaning of the phrase “damage roll.”

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The question isn’t if there are multiple points of determination as to whether the target takes damage. A damage roll occurs after such determination. You have two separate sets of rules each instructing you to roll dice to determine an amount of damage to be dealt to a creature (i.e. a damage roll). That both sets of instructions tell you to roll the dice when you hit the creature with an attack is immaterial to the question of whether or not the damage rolls are the same, and I cannot fathom how you could interpret them as being the same. They are very literally two separate acts of rolling dice to determine damage, each dictated by separate rules parcels, and each assigning different damage types to the values determined by the rolling of the dice. In what world could they possibly be considered the same roll?

In the world we live in, where they’re both damage dealt as a direct result of landing the same damaging effect. The damage from an attack, spell, trap, or other immediate effect is a damage roll. Adding damage to that from various sources doesn’t change that, unless it specifies that it does. Some effects are specifically worded so that they aren’t part of the attack’s damage roll, like most effects that add damage if you crit.

The RAI is also plainly obvious simply by the fact that things that add to damage rolls have never been understood to stack up on a single attack or other immediate effect.

 

[Charlaquin]

The RAI is also plainly obvious simply by the fact that things that add to damage rolls have never been understood to stack up on a single attack or other immediate effect.

Sorry, I’m not sure what you mean by this? As for the rest of your post, I already responded to it above.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Sorry, I’m not sure what you mean by this? As for the rest of your post, I already responded to it above.

I’m not sure how to clarify, honestly. I’ll come back after dinner and see if I can suss out what the misunderstanding is.

 

[auburn2]

Not really related, but the whip+booming blade thing sounds interesting until you realize that booming blade is only 5ft, so you can't take advantage of the whip's length (or any reach weapon). Knowing that, i don't know why anyone would choose a whip with that combo.

I was using it as an example. That said RAW you can use a whip with BB from 5 feet just like any other weapon or you can use it from 10feet if you have the spell sniper feat.

FWIW The rogue/warlock in our party uses a whip all the time. It is her go-to melee weapon, sometimes she does an attack with reach so she does not need to disengage and can take hide as a Bonus action, sometimes she gets within 5 feet and does booming blade with it either when the enemy has already used a reaction or she does that and then takes disengage as a bonus. It is the melee weapon she most often uses and having it in her hand gives her a longer reach for opportunity attacks. A whip is more versatile than any other finesse weapon and I could see any character with proficiency and high dexterity using in favor of the other weapons available, especially a rogue or a character with sentinel. In terms of opportunity attacks a whip covers 4 times the area of a rapier or short sword - a rapier or short sword covers 79 square feet, a whip covers 314 square feet.