Simple question about secondary damage

[keterys]

The RAW are totally clear that it's #1... #2 might work for a house rule, but I'm not sure it's a good idea since there are several powers that are intentionally balanced as if they didn't get the extra bonuses.

Of course, the extra bonuses have gotten large enough that it makes those powers less popular.

 

[Eric Finley]

There have been at least two fairly active (and argumentative) threads about this over on the WotC boards, and at least one IIRC here. They all follow pretty much the same course, which is what I was trying to summarize in my post.

And yes, Keterys, you're right; I had been struggling for good terms for the two types of people I was seeing, and those seemed like the best terms. I didn't cross-check 'em for bias or appearance of bias, and it looks like some subconscious bias did sneak in there. Add one more group to that list, possibly the largest one (though by far less vocal than the ones I listed)... players who are hesitant to house-rule things or to pick less intuitive interpretations without a damn good iron-clad reason.

Anyway, as I say, the math convinces me. I'm not shy of house-rules, quite the reverse, though, so of course YMMV.

 

[keterys]

Yeah, I'm trying to nail down what I'd like to do as far as a house rule goes myself. I think unfortunately my answer is a bit too convoluted to really use.

 

[Eric Finley]

Honestly, try this: All powers which do only attribute modifier or constant damage add "1d0" to the damage rating; they are all "rolls." However, damage bonuses can apply to only one damage roll during an action (that is, Action); in general this will be the first one that hits, if you hit an edge case ask the DM before taking the power. Note that close and area attacks roll damage only once; the bonus applies to the roll and thus to the damage inflicted on every target of the power who gets hit. Most importantly, anytime damage occurs outside of the time-frame of an action you have taken (and whose action was a power use which inflicted that damage), it is not eligible for your static bonuses - this covers ongoing damage, conditional damage, start-of-turn or aura damage, and so forth.

Also, for the love of Pete, house-rule fix Reckless and Bloodclaw. Static bonuses aren't nearly so horrible if you rewrite these effects into what the designers pretty obviously meant for them to do - apply to their own attacks only, once only per penalty taken, and so forth.

 

[keterys]

I'm not entirely convinced that Grasping Shards, Furious Smash, and Knockdown Assault need a major boost like that, though.

 

[Trevelyan]

I'm not entirely convinced that Grasping Shards, Furious Smash, and Knockdown Assault need a major boost like that, though.

I'm reasonably certain that many powers don't.

Grasping shadows (not to be confused with grasping shards) is already among the better level 1 wizard encounter spells, but that change would up the static damage considerably.

 

[Stalker0]

Honestly, try this: All powers which do only attribute modifier or constant damage add "1d0" to the damage rating; they are all "rolls."

This is what I've done...especially for Furious Smash.

 

[keterys]

I'm reasonably certain that many powers don't.

Grasping shadows (not to be confused with grasping shards) is already among the better level 1 wizard encounter spells, but that change would up the static damage considerably.

I think his suggested change wouldn't apply to secondary static damages like in Grasping Shadows or Grasp of the Grave (so many grasping things!), since those have actual damage rolls.

I don't know if the intention would be to apply to Reaping Strike or Hammer Rhythm, which deal static damage on a miss?

In truth, the real problem is massive bonuses available to the damage roll and higher levels when critical hits become far more common. Take away iron armbands of power and bloodclaw/reckless and it's far more tame of a difference. Eh.