You are correct. The poison dealt damage, not the golem. And since the poison is not a creature, the champion would be unable to use Retributive Strike.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If an enemy sorcerer casts Gouging Claw and damages an ally, I can use a Champion reaction against it.
If an enemy sorcerer casts Produce Flame as a melee attack and damages an ally, I can use a Champion reaction against it.
If an enemy sorcerer casts Produce Flame as a ranged attack, damages an ally, and both are within range of my Champion, I can use a Champion reaction against it.
If an enemy sorcerer casts Burning Hands and damages an ally and both are within range, I can use a Champion reaction against it.
So I see no reason why I couldn't use a Champion reaction against damage from a breath weapon or even a spell like Sanguine Mist.
I will agree with The Raven Black that persistent damage is different since it is the condition that is continuing to deal damage, not the direct action of the enemy.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd also allow the Retributive Strike against the first poison attack, as it's a direct consequence of a save failed against the golem attack. The subsequent saves, however, not at all.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I seem to agree with @HumbleGamer, especially on effects that are persistent (on the board) and that have not been used for a direct attack.
If an enemy casts Wall of Fire hitting no one in the process of doing so and an ally later that turn deliberately choses to cross through, it is the ally who inflicts damage onto himself, on his turn, and not the enemy.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
A wall of fire placed so no one is harmed by it is a wildly different situation than the question of poison - at least any poison that is not similarly set down somewhere and completely harmless until such an event as a character chooses to interact with it.
That's more like not being able to block the falling damage someone takes slipping down a set of stairs, even if the person that built the stairs is within required distance at the time, than it is like the claim of "that's not the creature that did that, it's the poison"
The Champion reaction is strongly tied to the fact that the creature is actively harming the character. The best example is the Redeemer one. The creature has the choice to not harm the character. But for that, you need the creature to actively harm the character, how can you choose not to harm someone who takes poisons damage that has been applied previously?
So, for the first poison application, there's something logical (at least not vastly illogical) that the creature can pull his blow. But after that, it's no more in the creature control.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, we are definitely well into edge-case territory here. But seeing where the game rules get wonky is amusing and sometimes insightful.
For a general ruling, I would only allow Champion reaction to damaged caused by an enemy action. Including sustaining a spell, but not including persistent damage or ongoing effects of spells with a non-sustained duration.
So the initial damage of Produce Flame could be reacted to. The persistent fire damage on a critical hit wouldn't trigger. An initial attack from a poisoned weapon could be reacted to. The poison itself wouldn't trigger. Flaming Sphere would trigger Champion reaction because the damage is being dealt as a result of the sustain a spell action.
I think this generally fits an intuitive sense of how 'reacting to someone causing damage' would work.
If a Champion has a Wood Golem ally (probably from some summoning spell or something like that) and an enemy casts Elemental Zone (fire) on the area that it is in: the spell doesn't target the golem and doesn't cause damage, so the Champion reaction doesn't trigger. At the start of the golem's turn when it is in the area it would take damage from being in an area effect with a fire trait, so would take damage - but the Champion reaction still wouldn't trigger because there is no action being taken by an enemy at that time.
This one is definitely an edge case. While it is somewhat amusing, I don't think it is going to break the game any time soon.
Considering that the ongoing damage is still tied to the creature having inflicted it would create lots of problems with bonuses to damage. Bonuses to damage would impact persistent damage and vary if the character is sometimes under damage bonus and sometimes not. On top of being highly illogical, it would improve persistent damage as in general the values are rather low and would benefit greatly from damage bonuses.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It could be fun though
*Alchemist poisons mugs, trying to debilitate the adventurers*
*the onset time is 10 minutes, so in the meanwhile the alchemist talks to them*
*Suddenly, during the talk adventurers and alchemist are having, the champion punches the alchemist right in the face*"What was that for?"
"You know what you did... though I don't..."
Reactions are voluntary actions. The Paladin knows why they punch the Alchemist because they make this decision.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You wouldn't suddenly start treating an attack that does 1d8+4 plus 1d4 persistent as 1d8+5 plus 1d4+1 persistent under an effect like Inspire Courage just because that persistent damage counts as caused by the creature instead of causing itself or whatever the form you pick for it not being the creature takes.
Um... That is exactly what Inspire Courage would do if it was ruled that persistent damage was caused by the character. Inspire Courage applies to all rolled damage that the Bard and allies deal.
So you're saying that if I use inspire courage on a character with a pair of elemental runes on their +2 striking longsword that they'll add +1 damage to the 2d8 slashing, and +1 damage to each of the d6s from the runes? And then they throw an alchemist's fire and it gets the +1 from inspire courage to the damage for the direct hit, the splash, and the persistent damage?
...or is it like I believe it to be and they get +1 to the direct hit of the bomb and to the slashing damage of the sword?
Alchemist Fire splash damage isn't rolled, so it wouldn't be increased - or at least it is harder to justify. I think it is one of the big errata requests - is fixed amount damage considered 'rolled' for things that reference 'rolled damage' and 'damage rolls'.
The different types of rolled damage from things like Flaming runes - yes, that gets increased additionally. Same with spells that deal multiple types of damage. That is at least how I have been understanding the results of the previous debates on the topic.
But at the very least, Inspire Courage would apply to damage done at separate times. You wouldn't rule that only the first Strike from a weapon would be increased, would you? Subsequent attacks during the round would also get the bonus damage. So persistent damage - since it is also done at a different time than the initial attack - would also be increased separately.
It could be fun though
*Alchemist poisons mugs, trying to debilitate the adventurers*
*the onset time is 10 minutes, so in the meanwhile the alchemist talks to them*
*Suddenly, during the talk adventurers and alchemist are having, the champion punches the alchemist right in the face*"What was that for?"
"You know what you did... though I don't..."
That's impossible by RAW as well, though, because you can't take a reaction for something that you aren't aware of.
If an invisible enemy is unnoticed by the Paladin, and strikes an ally, and both are within range, they couldn't use Retributive Strike because they aren't aware of who or what struck their ally, and so couldn't react to it. Same concept here; the Paladin is undetected to the Alchemist's intentions, and so couldn't use their Reaction at the point of onset.
The different types of rolled damage from things like Flaming runes - yes, that gets increased additionally. Same with spells that deal multiple types of damage. That is at least how I have been understanding the results of the previous debates on the topic.If a spell deals 5d6 fire damage and 5d6 positive damage and a feature says increase the damage you deal by +1, the end result is a total of 10d6+1 because if it were 10d6+2 that wouldn't be a valid interpretation of "+1 status bonus to damage rolls" - both because 2 does not equal 1 and because that's not more than one damage roll and you can't stack the same type of bonus on a roll.
That depends on whether 5d6 fire and 5d6 positive is one roll or two.
Do you know of anywhere in the rules that defines if it is one damage roll or two damage rolls?
The only thing I am aware of is the vague term 'instance of damage'. But it is not clear what causes things to be a different instance of damage or part of the same instance of damage.
It looks to be one of those things which the authors have assumed everyone knows well enough that they don't need to spend word count explaining
Exactly.
And the way that I have resolved the vague rule is that if the damage is of the same type or especially if it says that it explicitly adds to existing damage (like Striking Runes and Precision damage do) then it is still part of the same instance of damage. But if it is of different damage types it is a different instance of damage - which is why Resist (all) applies to all damage types from the same attack separately.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are a few things that makes me intervene:
Damage is one of the less explicit part of the rules, but I think we can get a proper ruling from the intention.
First, you don't add the status bonus to damage multiple times because the damage roll is one and only one. That's why the resistance part speaks of multiple instances of damage, if you roll multiple types of damage they are considered different instances but a single roll.
Second, static damage is also increased by bonuses to damage. If you don't do that you end up unable to sneak attack with a blowgun or you have Daze that doesn't benefit from bonuses to damage before level 5 but benefits from them afterwards. Also, doubling and halving damage is part of the same step than rolling the damage, and many spells with static damage ask for a basic save (Finger of Death for example).
If an effect is still linked to you to the point of negating the damage thanks to the Redeemer reaction then it's still linked to you damage-wise: Both are modifiers to the damage dealt. I think we can safely determine that there's no such link and that persistent damage is its own source of damage and no more linked to the creature having done it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First, you don't add the status bonus to damage multiple times because the damage roll is one and only one. That's why the resistance part speaks of multiple instances of damage, if you roll multiple types of damage they are considered different instances but a single roll.
So which damage type would the additional damage be? It might make a difference in the case of resistances or immunities.
For example, if you have a spear with a flaming rune and a +1 bonus from Inspire Courage, you would want to add the bonus to the weapon damage if facing a creature immune to fire but you would want to add the bonus to the fire damage if facing a creature with a high resistance to piercing damage.
Second, static damage is also increased by bonuses to damage. If you don't do that you end up unable to sneak attack with a blowgun
Sneak Attack doesn't reference only adding to rolled damage. It adds precision damage which is always an increase to the existing weapon damage and is of the same damage type. So Sneak Attack with a blowgun will always work no matter the ruling on status bonuses to rolled damage.
or you have Daze that doesn't benefit from bonuses to damage before level 5 but benefits from them afterwards.
Yes, this one is strange. There are some alchemical items that do the same thing. Low level ones are fixed damage amounts, but higher ones are rolled. Energy Mutagen for example where the Lesser version at level 1 does 1 point of damage, but the Moderate at level 3 does 1d4.
First, you don't add the status bonus to damage multiple times because the damage roll is one and only one. That's why the resistance part speaks of multiple instances of damage, if you roll multiple types of damage they are considered different instances but a single roll.So which damage type would the additional damage be? It might make a difference in the case of resistances or immunities.
For example, if you have a spear with a flaming rune and a +1 bonus from Inspire Courage, you would want to add the bonus to the weapon damage if facing a creature immune to fire but you would want to add the bonus to the fire damage if facing a creature with a high resistance to piercing damage.
Most (nearly all, but there are a few exceptions with Oracle spells) spells and attacks specify a main damage type and others being additional/extra damage. Flaming rune adds extra damage. The bonus to damage applies to the main damage, not to additional damage.
Sneak Attack doesn't reference only adding to rolled damage. It adds precision damage which is always an increase to the existing weapon damage and is of the same damage type. So Sneak Attack with a blowgun will always work no matter the ruling on status bonuses to rolled damage.
Well, the rules for damage are unclear, but one can consider that "Step 1: Roll the Damage Dice and Apply Modifiers, Bonuses, and Penalties" is also the step when one roll Sneak Attack damage. But you're right that extra/additional damage is not properly define, so we don't know when it is actually added.
Damage is one of the less explicit part of the rules, but I think we can get a proper ruling from the intention.
First, you don't add the status bonus to damage multiple times because the damage roll is one and only one. That's why the resistance part speaks of multiple instances of damage, if you roll multiple types of damage they are considered different instances but a single roll.
The problem is that there is often another die roll for additional damage, eg Sneak attack, Flaming Rune. These can be of the same type or of another type. It has different resistance implications. So how can we say there is only one damage roll?
Whether this damage roll is part of the normal damage equation that we tack on, or another instance of the damage equation, or just something else, is just not clear.
I agree that the bonus should only add once. But the actual mechanics of that is undefined.
It looks to be one of those things which the authors have assumed everyone knows well enough that they don't need to spend word count explainingExactly.
Its a pity they didn't come close to covering the issues.
The problem is that there is often another die roll for additional damage, eg Sneak attack, Flaming Rune.Damage is one of the less explicit part of the rules, but I think we can get a proper ruling from the intention.
First, you don't add the status bonus to damage multiple times because the damage roll is one and only one. That's why the resistance part speaks of multiple instances of damage, if you roll multiple types of damage they are considered different instances but a single roll.
Additional damage isn't defined properly. But, what seems clear:
1. Resistance and Weakness speak of multiple instances of damage that can be of multiple types. So additional damage has to be merged before that (as normal damage only has one damage type).2. Bonus to damage isn't added to additional damage. It's not written specifically in the rules, but everyone applies this rule. If it was not the intent, I expect people to quickly realize it (there are tons of Youtube videos showing this rule, and I don't think anyone from Paizo ever objected).
3. Additional damage is multiplied in case of critical hit. Same thing than point 2, it's not written precisely in the rules, but once again this rule is massively used and noone objected ever.
So, we know that additional damage has to be added to normal damage during damage calculation (point 1), we know that additional damage isn't calculated on the side (point 2) and we know that it has to be added before the end of Step 1 as it's when we multiply damage in case of critical (point 3). As such, additional damage is added at the beginning of Step 1. In my opinion, there's an ideal moment to add it: When we roll dice for damage.
Sure, I can't say it's RAW, but I think it's a solid analysis of additional damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think RAW you would add the bonus to the 5d6 fire damage AND the 5d6 positive damage. Since they are of different types they have to be separate instances of damage, both benefiting from the bonus.
The classical spell doing that is Searing Light. Searing Light does 5d6 Fire damage and 5d6 extra positive/good damage. Other instances of "extra" damage are elemental runes, rage and weapon specialization for example. If a Dragon Barbarian with a Flaming sword is under Inspire Courage, do you add the damage bonus 3 times? I don't think so. So, I highly disagree with you, the bonus must be added only to the Fire damage, as it's the base damage of the spell.
The classical spell doing that is Searing Light. Searing Light does 5d6 Fire damage and 5d6 extra positive/good damage. Other instances of "extra" damage are elemental runes, rage and weapon specialization for example. If a Dragon Barbarian with a Flaming sword is under Inspire Courage, do you add the damage bonus 3 times? I don't think so. So, I highly disagree with you, the bonus must be added only to the Fire damage, as it's the base damage of the spell.The extra damage rule seams a bit arbitrary to me though. Whats with Cataclysm for example? What is the 'main damage' and what is the 'extra damage' there? And why is the roll for rolling 'extra damage' no damage roll?
As I said, there are a few spells causing issues (this one doesn't considering its level, but Tempest Oracle Focus Spells have the same issue). It's not perfect, but there's a need for a rule, and applying the closest to RAI is all we can do considering the big gap in the rules around additional damage.
If a Dragon Barbarian with a Flaming sword is under Inspire Courage, do you add the damage bonus 3 times? I don't think so. So, I highly disagree with you, the bonus must be added only to the Fire damage, as it's the base damage of the spell.RAW, yes I think that's the way it would work.
Would I run it that way? No.
There's no RAW around additional damage. Hence the whole discussion. Luckily, there's a lot of RAI we can use.
|
Currently, the trigger is:
“An enemy damages your ally, and both are within 15 feet of you.”
What if, instead, the trigger said:
“An enemy uses an action or reaction to damage your ally this round, and both are within 15 feet of you.”
Would something like that address the concerns that people have the the enemy has to actually do something (instead of relying on continuous or persistent damage)? Or would that make it more complicated?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think they couldn't have made the description clearer than that...Clearer than what? What is currently is?
If the intent is that any damage an enemy does (including persistent or damage from an affliction) triggers, then I agree with you 100%. Is that the intent?
Persistent Damage is a condition that triggers at the end of your turn if it's not treated earlier. In this case, the source of the damage is the condition, not the enemy. The enemy inflicted the condition, which inflicts the damage. Retributive Strike requires that the enemy inflicts the damage, not the condition the enemy applies.
Thus, an enemy could Grab an ally, and Retributive Strike would not trigger, since they are inflicting a condition (Grabbed), and not damage. All you're doing instead is changing the condition label from Grabbed to Persistent Damage, and the end result is the exact same.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's no RAW around additional damage. Hence the whole discussion. Luckily, there's a lot of RAI we can use.In my oppinion there is. Let's look at the rules for damage.
Here is the first step: https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=336. It starts with a damage roll to which bonuses and paneltys are applied.
As with checks, you might add circumstance, status, or item bonuses to your damage rolls, but if you have multiple bonuses of the same type, you add only the highest bonus of that type.Then we go to step 2: https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=340. Here the damage type (not types) is determined.
Once you’ve calculated how much damage you deal, you’ll need to determine the damage type.Therefore Fire and Good can NOT be from the same damage roll. So RAW is pretty clear: you apply the bonus to each of them.
I've given in a previous post the 3 points that make me use additional damage that way. I can make a mistake (and you can disagree, off course), but I think you'll need a more thorough search to instill a little bit of doubt.