Does Litany of Righteousness work like vulnerability?

[DMO]

Litany of Righteousness is a little confusing.

LoR:

Litany of Righteousness wrote:

Calling down a litany of anathema, you make an evil more susceptible to the attacks of good creatures. If the target is evil, it takes double damage from attacks made by creatures with a good aura (from a class feature or as a creature with the good subtype). If the target also has the evil subtype; when it is hit with attacks made by creatures with a good aura, it is also dazzled for 1d4 rounds. If this spell targets a nonevil creature (or one that lacks the evil subtype), it has no effect, and the spell is wasted.

At first glance, it seems to work like a crit, adding a multiplier to any existing multipliers. So if a Paladin were to hit something for 10 damage, LoR would double it to 20. If that Paladin were to instead crit with a longsword, dealing 20 damage, LoR would add a multiplier to his crit (x2 + x1) for 30 damage dealt, since multipliers stack additively.

Except for when something is vulnerable to a particular energy. Energy vulnerability damage is stacked multiplicatively, so that your damage is totaled, then multiplied by 1.5, making it clear that in some cases, damage dealt and damage taken can be different.

For Example:

I cast a fireball into a room containing a goblin and a white dragon. I roll my d6s, and it is determined that my fireball deals 30 points of fire damage. The goblin takes 30 points of damage, while the white dragon takes 45 points.

I notice LoR uses different language than something like Spirited Charge, saying that the target takes more damage from the attacks of certain creatures, rather than dealing more damage on a charge attack.

Does this mean that LoR works like vulnerability instead of a crit, causing the creature under LoR to take (10 x2 x2) 40 damage instead of (10 x(2+1)) 30 from the Paladin's longsword crit?

Thanks in advance.

[Brain in a Jar]

The spell doesn't make the target vulnerable to anything.

The spell clearly calls for the evil target to take double damage.

If you Crit an evil target with this spell active you would deal (x3) damage. [Assuming a longsword like ion your example]

[DMO]

I did not mean to suggest it gave energy vulnerability; the spell does what it does. It is a unique effect. It is not a critical hit, and it is not energy vulnerability, but it still increases damage. I noted in the example above that the spell's description modifies damage taken by a creature rather than damage dealt by a PC.

Critical hits are a mechanic that modify damage dealt by a PC (additive multipliers).

Energy vulnerability is a mechanic that modifies damage taken by a creature (mutiplicatively).

The language in the spell description seems to line up more with vulnerability than critical hits, which is why I asked if the knee-jerk reaction to treat it as a crit should be thought about more carefully.

If you crit with a scorching ray on something that is vulnerable to fire, you don't roll 10d6. You roll 8d6 then multiply by 1.5, correct? Because vulnerability modifies damage taken, rather than damage dealt. There is a distinction, and LoR specifically modifies damage taken by a creature. Is there another mechanic that also modifies damage taken, rather than damage dealt? Energy vulnerability is the only one I know of off the top of my head, so that's all I have to compare it to.

[Brain in a Jar]

Multiplying

When you are asked to apply more than one multiplier to a roll, the multipliers are not multiplied by one another. Instead, you combine them into a single multiplier, with each extra multiple adding 1 less than its value to the first multiple. For example, if you are asked to apply a ×2 multiplier twice, the result would be ×3, not ×4.

This is listed under the Common Terms section of the game.

If you are a Paladin using a Longsword and Litany of Righteousness.

Base Damage: 1d8+10
Critical: 2d8+20 [x2]
Litany: 3d8+30 [x3]

The only reason it mentions "takes" in the spell description is because if the Paladin in the example uses Litany it lasts for 1 round, during which time if others attack this target and they have Aura(Good) they also get to multiply damage.

[DMO]

It seems I am still not being clear. I am aware of how critical hit multipliers work. Additively. This is not how vulnerability multipliers work, as a critical scorching ray does not equate to 10d6 damage (additive multiplier - (x2 + x(1.5-1)); rather, (4d6x2)x1.5.

I am not asking for the critical hit multiplier rules to be explained. The entire point of the question was to ask if they are even valid rules to apply to this spell in the first place, since there are actually two ways multipliers are resolved, despite the rule you quoted above.

My hypothesis is that the distinction between the two methods of multiplier interaction (additive for critical hits, multiplicative for vulnerability) lies in the difference between damage dealt vs. damage taken, as I attempted to explain with the fireball example above.

The thought I am trying to provoke is why is LoR thought to work like a critical hit, and not like vulnerability. LoR is not a critical hit, nor is it vulnerability. It is something unique, yet its language is more analogous to the vulnerability mechanic than it is to the critical hit mechanic, so it seems it should interact with damage like vulnerability does (multiplicatively instead of additively).

So the question is not how critical hit multipliers work; that is very clear. The question is not how vulnerability multipliers work either; that is also very clear. The question is which ruleset applies to how LoR multiplies damage

It seems to me that LoR is closer to vulnerability than it is to a critical hit. I gather that it seems to you that it is closer to a critical hit than to vulnerability. The question is why you think the critical hit rules apply, and NOT the vulnerability rules. Because it can't be both.

Perhaps I'm wrong, and a scorching ray that crits on a white dragon actually means you roll 10d6. If that is the case, please inform me of my mistake.

[Brain in a Jar]

I already showed you how it works. Multiplying isn't just for Critical Hits its a blanket common term for all multiples.

It has nothing to do with vulnerabilities or how they function.

Litany doubles the damage the evil target takes. That's it. It doesn't make them vulnerable it doubles damage.

So i'll list this again.

Multiplying

When you are asked to apply more than one multiplier to a roll, the multipliers are not multiplied by one another. Instead, you combine them into a single multiplier, with each extra multiple adding 1 less than its value to the first multiple. For example, if you are asked to apply a ×2 multiplier twice, the result would be ×3, not ×4.

You'll notice it doesn't mention Critical Hits. This is because this is how multipliers work flat out.

You are just confused because you keep claiming the rule for multipliers are just for Critical Hits when they are not.

This is the rule 100%.

[Canthin]

Brain in a Jar wrote:

I already showed you how it works. Multiplying isn't just for Critical Hits its a blanket common term for all multiples.

It has nothing to do with vulnerabilities or how they function.

Litany doubles the damage the evil target takes. That's it. It doesn't make them vulnerable it doubles damage.

So i'll list this again.

Multiplying

When you are asked to apply more than one multiplier to a roll, the multipliers are not multiplied by one another. Instead, you combine them into a single multiplier, with each extra multiple adding 1 less than its value to the first multiple. For example, if you are asked to apply a ×2 multiplier twice, the result would be ×3, not ×4.

You'll notice it doesn't mention Critical Hits. This is because this is how multipliers work flat out.

You are just confused because you keep claiming the rule for multipliers are just for Critical Hits when they are not.

This is the rule 100%.

I think the OP is asking because of the difference between dealing and taking damage. Most of the time it is the same, but in the case he is describing, I think an example is in order:

An attack made by a [Good] creature whose attack deals 1d6+6 (average 9) fire damage to an [Evil] creature under the effects of this spell that also has fire vulnerability...

Would it deal 1d6+6 x2.5 (x2 for LoR, x1.5 for vulnerability) (average 22)
or
Would it deal 1d6+6 x2 (average 18) as per the spell and since vulnerability takes 1.5 times the normal damage dealt, they would take average of 27 damage?

[Brain in a Jar]

Canthin wrote:

Brain in a Jar wrote:

I already showed you how it works. Multiplying isn't just for Critical Hits its a blanket common term for all multiples.

It has nothing to do with vulnerabilities or how they function.

Litany doubles the damage the evil target takes. That's it. It doesn't make them vulnerable it doubles damage.

So i'll list this again.

Multiplying

When you are asked to apply more than one multiplier to a roll, the multipliers are not multiplied by one another. Instead, you combine them into a single multiplier, with each extra multiple adding 1 less than its value to the first multiple. For example, if you are asked to apply a ×2 multiplier twice, the result would be ×3, not ×4.

You'll notice it doesn't mention Critical Hits. This is because this is how multipliers work flat out.

You are just confused because you keep claiming the rule for multipliers are just for Critical Hits when they are not.

This is the rule 100%.

I think the OP is asking because of the difference between dealing and taking damage. Most of the time it is the same, but in the case he is describing, I think an example is in order:

An attack made by a [Good] creature whose attack deals 1d6+6 (average 9) fire damage to an [Evil] creature under the effects of this spell that also has fire vulnerability...

Would it deal 1d6+6 x2.5 (x2 for LoR, x1.5 for vulnerability) (average 22)
or
Would it deal 1d6+6 x2 (average 18) as per the spell and since vulnerability takes 1.5 times the normal damage dealt, they would take average of 27 damage?

But that's not what the OP was asking.

DMO is trying to justify Litany as a vulnerability, which it is not, and is confused about how multipliers work.

Edit
Also in your example it would be 27 damage. Also a side note Vulnerability isn't 1.5 damage(that would make it a multiplier) it is +50%.

[DMO]

Brain in a Jar wrote:

This is the rule 100%.

Except it isn't, as I have pointed out in the case of a scorching ray crit. That is applying two multiples multiplicatively, which that rule says you cannot do. But you do.

Energy Immunity and Vulnerability wrote:

Vulnerability means the creature takes half again as much (+50%) damage as normal from that energy type.

Litany of Righteousness wrote:

f the target is evil, it takes double damage from attacks made by creatures with a good aura (from a class feature or as a creature with the good subtype).

Multiplying wrote:

When you are asked to apply more than one multiplier to a roll, the multipliers are not multiplied by one another.

Emphasis mine is all cases. The argument I'm putting forth is that LoR does not ask you do multiply the damage that you deal. You are not multiplying any part of your rolls. You are figuring out how much damage you are dealing, and then that number is modified due to LoR, similar to how vulnerability works. The multiplying rules do not apply because you are not modifying the damage you deal. It has no effect on your damage rolls. It becomes a function of the monster for one round.

This the the distinction I was trying to make between damage dealt and damage taken with the fireball example in the OP.

All damage is totaled, and comes to, let's say 50. Since the creature is under LoR, that damage is then doubled to 100.

Maybe that's more clear? I think you're just not seeing the distinction I'm seeing between dealt and taken damage. Dealt is modifying damage rolls, taken does not.

EDIT due to ninjas to show the post I was replying to.

[Brain in a Jar]

The only reason it mentions "takes" in the spell description is because if the Paladin in the example uses Litany it lasts for 1 round, during which time if others attack this target and they have Aura(Good) they also get to multiply damage.

Litany literally mentions "double damage" which would mean your using a multiplier.

Let's use an example.

My Pyro-Paladin uses Litany on a evil foe that is vulnerable to fire with a fire attack that is a critical hit and the evil guy has resist 10 fire from a magic ring.

Base Damage: 10 Fire (x1)
Litany: 20 Fire (x2)
Critical: 30 Fire (x3)

So my Crit/Litany deals 30 Fire.

Evil guy then resists 10 and only takes 20 Fire which is then hit with +50% for a grand total of 30 Fire.

Basically in any instance of double damage or x2, x3 etc. You reference how Multipliers work. Then when you totaled the damage you apply (saves, resist, protection etc) and finally +50% for vulnerability.

Litany is not a vulnerability.

If it was it would mention that in the description since its a universal rule.

[DMO]

Brain in a Jar wrote:

The only reason it mentions "takes" in the spell description is because if the Paladin in the example uses Litany it lasts for 1 round, during which time if others attack this target and they have Aura(Good) they also get to multiply damage.

I think this is where our viewpoints diverge. The above is an assumption on your part. If that was the intent, I would think it would have stated that "all creatures that have Aura(Good) deal double damage to the target."

Since it specifically mentions damage taken by the creature, and not damage dealt by attacking creatures, I envision LoR as a debuff on the target lasting for one round. Since it is a debuff on the target, your damage rolls are unaffected by it, meaning that the Multiplier rules are inapplicable to them.

If LoR where a buff that everyone around you shared, I would agree with you that the x2 damage multiplier is applied to your roll. But that is not how the spell description is written, to my eyes.

Since vulnerability is the mechanic that modifies damage taken by a creature independent of rolls, that ruleset seems more applicable to me. Even if it does not specifically say "vulnerability(good aura creatures), but x2 instead of x1.5", they share the same language, and no other mechanic that I know of has that language.

If nothing else seems to fit, then I will use the closest thing available.

[Brain in a Jar]

DMO wrote:

Since it specifically mentions damage taken by the creature, and not damage dealt by attacking creatures, I envision LoR as a debuff on the target lasting for one round. Since it is a debuff on the target, your damage rolls are unaffected by it, meaning that the Multiplier rules are inapplicable to them.

As far as i understand "taken" and "dealt" are not game terms. All i know is that the spell mentions "double damage". Nothing about reading in-between the lines to make it more like a vulnerability.

DMO wrote:

Since vulnerability is the mechanic that modifies damage taken by a creature independent of rolls, that ruleset seems more applicable to me. Even if it does not specifically say "vulnerability(good aura creatures), but x2 instead of x1.5", they share the same language, and no other mechanic that I know of has that language.

If nothing else seems to fit, then I will use the closest thing available.

So in your opinion it seems more applicable, but i know you can't back that up with a rule citation, where i can.

Multiplying:

Multiplying

When you are asked to apply more than one multiplier to a roll, the multipliers are not multiplied by one another. Instead, you combine them into a single multiplier, with each extra multiple adding 1 less than its value to the first multiple. For example, if you are asked to apply a ×2 multiplier twice, the result would be ×3, not ×4.

See if you read how Multiplying works if you are asked to apply more than one multiplier to a roll[For instance when you make a Critical Hit with Litany] then you follow that rule.

It doesn't say sometimes, it doesn't make exceptions, it clearly states what it does.

Vulnerability:

Vulnerabilities (Ex or Su)

A creature with vulnerabilities takes half again as much damage (+50%) from a specific energy type, regardless of whether a saving throw is allowed or if the save is a success or failure. Creatures with a vulnerability that is not an energy type instead take a –4 penalty on saves against spells and effects that cause or use the listed vulnerability (such as spells with the light descriptor). Some creatures might suffer additional effects, as noted in their descriptions.

Format: vulnerability to fire; Location: Weaknesses.

Vulnerability uses +50% making it not a multiplier.
[You keep saying Vulnerability does 1.5 when in fact it is not expressed that way. It matters.]

Litany uses "double damage" making it a multiplier.

See i can back up what i'm claiming with rules.

Can you?

[DMO]

Brain in a Jar wrote:

Vulnerability uses +50% making it not a multiplier.

[You keep saying Vulnerability does 1.5 when in fact it is not expressed that way. It matters.]

Energy Immunity and Vulnerability wrote:

Vulnerability means the creature takes half again as much (+50%) damage as normal from that energy type,...

Litany of Righteousness wrote:

takes double damage from attacks made by creatures with a good aura

Those bolded words are the same words. No line reading in between necessary. One just has a different value than the first (+100% rather than +50%). This is what I'm saying when I make the distinction between damage taken and damage dealt. Damage taken is added multiplicatively. You take the whole sum, (post multipliers, since it is a function of the creature, not yourself) and add half again that number. LoR is written the exact same way.

So by your own stance, LoR is not a multiplier either, and is not subject to the Multiplier section of the rules, because it is damage taken by the creature, rather than dealt by the player. That is what I've been trying to say this entire time. I thought the fireball example in the OP outlined the difference between damage dealt and taken clearly, but I guess it didn't. Sorry for the runaround to get back to the point made in the first post.

EDIT: Just to be ultra clear, I'm saying that the Multiplier rules are not applied because you are not stacking multipliers onto the same roll. The rolling is done and damage is just a number by the time LoR is applied, just like vulnerability (i.e. post any DR, resistance, etc.. Damage dealt = before DR, resistance, etc., damage taken = number modified post DR, resistance, etc.,)

[Gauss]

RAW: The OP is correct. This is not in the damage dice step, it is in the taking damage step which is after damage is rolled.

The multiplier rule is applied before damage is rolled (to determine what you roll). LoR is after damage is rolled and before it is applied.

RAI: I believe this is a case of bad wording. It should not be 'taking' and it should be the regular multiplier.

As an aside, I have seen multiple people read it as double damage after dice are rolled. The OP is not alone in this thinking.
I have also banned LoR in it's RAW form from my table. It is an insane spell when used to double damage after dice are rolled.

[DMO]

Gauss wrote:

RAW: The OP is correct. This is not in the damage dice step, it is in the taking damage step which is after damage is rolled.

The multiplier rule is applied before damage is rolled (to determine what you roll). LoR is after damage is rolled and before it is applied.

RAI: I believe this is a case of bad wording. It should not be 'taking' and it should be the regular multiplier.

As an aside, I have seen multiple people read it as double damage after dice are rolled. The OP is not alone in this thinking.
I have also banned LoR in it's RAW form from my table. It is an insane spell when used to double damage after dice are rolled.

I agree that it is obscenely powerful as written (as if Paladins need more firepower to decimate an evil creature), but it has its limitations. Paladins have a hilariously low number of spells per day, and they can be quite valuable. Also, good luck breaking any kind if meaningful SR as a Paladin.

Even with those limitations, I self-ban using it on full attacks, and generally only incorporate it into a move+vital strike turn for particularly thematic moments.

[Celanian]

I house rule it to be like vital strike. All attackers double their base damage, but ignore SR. This makes it more balanced and roughly what the power of a 2nd level spell should be.

[Blakmane]

I sometimes get very confused by the logic of people on these forums.

There are two interpretations, both of which are potentially viable depending on what rules text you consider more authoritative:

1) Multiply as per standard rules

2) Multiply after total damage done as per vulnerability.

Instead of picking 1), which makes the ability strong but not overpowered, you pick 2) and then ban it.

If you are going to ban it anyway, why wouldn't you just use the interpretation which is clearly intended and keeps the spell at a decent power level? Why deliberately read the rules in such a way that you break your own game? I feel like I should put this quote in my signature for the amount of times it is applicable:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Again: the language is a little weak, but you're not stupid--and because you're not stupid, don't try to interpret the rules as if you were stupid.

[DMO]

Celanian wrote:

I house rule it to be like vital strike. All attackers double their base damage, but ignore SR. This makes it more balanced and roughly what the power of a 2nd level spell should be.

Definitely reasonable, but the only thing I would point out is that 2nd level Paladin spell =/= 2nd level wizard spell since Paladin only goes to 4th. Unless at your table you believe 9th level spellcasters should have more powerful spells by default, and all spell levels should work off the same scale. Which I also think is a reasonable stance, and makes your houserule perfectly in line with that.

[Gauss]

Blakmane, thank you for completely misreading and misrepresenting my post.

I didn't say I banned it. I said I banned it in it's RAW form, which, is also the form you do not use.

As for the two interpretations, one is RAW, one is RAI. By your own admission you are reading it as RAI, not as RAW.

This forum is for discussing RAW and RAI so discussing both is not 'stupid' (as per your quote). Discussions of RAW/RAI in this forum have little (if any) bearing on how people actually run a game.
Please try to be less insulting.

Back to the rules discussion: The standard rules for multiplying damage are to multiple dice and bonuses. That occurs prior to taking damage. This spell clearly multiplies the damage taken rather than the standard method of multiplication. Thus, in it's RAW form, it is quite overpowered and there are many people out there that build around this.

Again, I do not believe it's RAW form is the RAI. I believe they intended it to be a standard multiplier but they worded the spell incorrectly. However, that is only my belief and I have no proof to back it up.

[Caedwyr]

Wand crafting also takes this to hilarious places and removes one of the limitations of the number of spell slots available to a paladin.

[DMO]

Gauss wrote:

I have also banned LoR in it's RAW form from my table. It is an insane spell when used to double damage after dice are rolled.

Just curious how much this actually lowered the power of the spell, in your experience. This would only change how it would multiply critical damage, correct? It would still double all damage done normally, essentially making every hit a x2 crit.

It would actually make it MORE powerful if there were no crits, and you were somehow not bypassing DR by also smiting, since you would double before applying DR.

[Celanian]

DMO wrote:

Celanian wrote:

I house rule it to be like vital strike. All attackers double their base damage, but ignore SR. This makes it more balanced and roughly what the power of a 2nd level spell should be.

Definitely reasonable, but the only thing I would point out is that 2nd level Paladin spell =/= 2nd level wizard spell since Paladin only goes to 4th. Unless at your table you believe 9th level spellcasters should have more powerful spells by default, and all spell levels should work off the same scale. Which I also think is a reasonable stance, and makes your houserule perfectly in line with that.

I'm just comparing my version with other 2nd level paladin spells.

[Brain in a Jar]

DMO wrote:

Brain in a Jar wrote:

Vulnerability uses +50% making it not a multiplier.

[You keep saying Vulnerability does 1.5 when in fact it is not expressed that way. It matters.]

Energy Immunity and Vulnerability wrote:

Vulnerability means the creature takes half again as much (+50%) damage as normal from that energy type,...

Litany of Righteousness wrote:

takes double damage from attacks made by creatures with a good aura

Those bolded words are the same words. No line reading in between necessary. One just has a different value than the first (+100% rather than +50%). This is what I'm saying when I make the distinction between damage taken and damage dealt. Damage taken is added multiplicatively. You take the whole sum, (post multipliers, since it is a function of the creature, not yourself) and add half again that number. LoR is written the exact same way.

So by your own stance, LoR is not a multiplier either, and is not subject to the Multiplier section of the rules, because it is damage taken by the creature, rather than dealt by the player. That is what I've been trying to say this entire time. I thought the fireball example in the OP outlined the difference between damage dealt and taken clearly, but I guess it didn't. Sorry for the runaround to get back to the point made in the first post.

EDIT: Just to be ultra clear, I'm saying that the Multiplier rules are not applied because you are not stacking multipliers onto the same roll. The rolling is done and damage is just a number by the time LoR is applied, just like vulnerability (i.e. post any DR, resistance, etc.. Damage dealt = before DR, resistance, etc., damage taken = number modified post DR, resistance, etc.,)

Can you cite the rules for this like a link or even an idea of where to find it?

If you think your correct shouldn't you be able to back it up with more than just your words and opinions.

If it works how you say you should be able to quote the rules and lead me to that conclusion.

Until such a time i'm left with just your opinion on why damage "dealt" is somehow any different from damage "taken".

[DMO]

Brain in a Jar wrote:

DMO wrote:

Brain in a Jar wrote:

Vulnerability uses +50% making it not a multiplier.

[You keep saying Vulnerability does 1.5 when in fact it is not expressed that way. It matters.]

Energy Immunity and Vulnerability wrote:

Vulnerability means the creature takes half again as much (+50%) damage as normal from that energy type,...

Litany of Righteousness wrote:

takes double damage from attacks made by creatures with a good aura

Those bolded words are the same words. No line reading in between necessary. One just has a different value than the first (+100% rather than +50%). This is what I'm saying when I make the distinction between damage taken and damage dealt. Damage taken is added multiplicatively. You take the whole sum, (post multipliers, since it is a function of the creature, not yourself) and add half again that number. LoR is written the exact same way.

So by your own stance, LoR is not a multiplier either, and is not subject to the Multiplier section of the rules, because it is damage taken by the creature, rather than dealt by the player. That is what I've been trying to say this entire time. I thought the fireball example in the OP outlined the difference between damage dealt and taken clearly, but I guess it didn't. Sorry for the runaround to get back to the point made in the first post.

EDIT: Just to be ultra clear, I'm saying that the Multiplier rules are not applied because you are not stacking multipliers onto the same roll. The rolling is done and damage is just a number by the time LoR is applied, just like vulnerability (i.e. post any DR, resistance, etc.. Damage dealt = before DR, resistance, etc., damage taken = number modified post DR, resistance, etc.,)

Can you cite the rules for this like a link or even an idea of where to find it?

If you think your correct shouldn't you be able to back it up with more than just your words and opinions.

If it works how you say you should be able to quote the rules and...

Little combative to engage, but I'll try one more time.

I have provided numerous examples above that display how damage dealt and damage taken are different. You even did yourself once. They are not defined in any rulebook that I know of because there is no need to define self-defining terms. Damage dealt is the damage you deal from an attack. Damage taken is the damage a creature actually takes, once situational modifiers are added (DR, resistance, vulnerability, etc.) This is elementary, as in, not decomposable into simpler elements.

As Gauss said above, and I mentioned myself several times, the Multiplier rules do not apply since you are not adding multipliers to your damage roll. You are making a damage roll, and if an attack crits, you will apply the critical multiplier pertinent to your weapon. The number resolved from this is your damage dealt. Next, you apply modifiers to see how much damage the creature actually takes. Does it have DR? Resistance? Vulnerability? Currently LoR'd? These do not modify your damage roll. It's already done. So you aren't adding multipliers.

If you don't see that distinction, then I don't know what to tell you at this point. We will just have to agree to disagree.

[Brain in a Jar]

DMO wrote:

Little combative to engage, but I'll try one more time.

I have provided numerous examples above that display how damage dealt and damage taken are different. You even did yourself once. They are not defined in any rulebook that I know of because there is no need to define self-defining terms. Damage dealt is the damage you deal from an attack. Damage taken is the damage a creature actually takes, once situational modifiers are added (DR, resistance, vulnerability, etc.) This is elementary, as in, not decomposable into simpler elements.

If you don't see that distinction, then I don't know what to tell you at this point. We will just have to agree to disagree.

Your entire argument is based on a false assumption.

DMO wrote:

Does this mean that LoR works like vulnerability instead of a crit, causing the creature under LoR to take (10 x2 x2) 40 damage instead of (10 x(2+1)) 30 from the Paladin's longsword crit?

Thanks in advance.

You have been attributing that Litany of the Righteous works in a manner similar to when vulnerability acts.

Even if that were true. THE MOMENT that you were to get a Critical Hit you have to follow the rules for Multiplying.

It stipulates that:

When you are asked to apply more than one multiplier to a roll, the multipliers are not multiplied by one another. Instead, you combine them into a single multiplier, with each extra multiple adding 1 less than its value to the first multiple. For example, if you are asked to apply a ×2 multiplier twice, the result would be ×3, not ×4.

You can't double a double. Its in the Common Terms of the game section. I've been responding about that.

[DMO]

Brain in a Jar wrote:

DMO wrote:

Little combative to engage, but I'll try one more time.

I have provided numerous examples above that display how damage dealt and damage taken are different. You even did yourself once. They are not defined in any rulebook that I know of because there is no need to define self-defining terms. Damage dealt is the damage you deal from an attack. Damage taken is the damage a creature actually takes, once situational modifiers are added (DR, resistance, vulnerability, etc.) This is elementary, as in, not decomposable into simpler elements.

If you don't see that distinction, then I don't know what to tell you at this point. We will just have to agree to disagree.

Your entire argument is based on a false assumption.

DMO wrote:

Does this mean that LoR works like vulnerability instead of a crit, causing the creature under LoR to take (10 x2 x2) 40 damage instead of (10 x(2+1)) 30 from the Paladin's longsword crit?

Thanks in advance.

You have been attributing that Litany of the Righteous works in a manner similar to when vulnerability acts.

Even if that were true. THE MOMENT that you were to get a Critical Hit you have to follow the rules for Multiplying.

It stipulates that:

When you are asked to apply more than one multiplier to a roll, the multipliers are not multiplied by one another. Instead, you combine them into a single multiplier, with each extra multiple adding 1 less than its value to the first multiple. For example, if you are asked to apply a ×2 multiplier twice, the result would be ×3, not ×4.

You can't double a double. Its in the Common Terms of the game section. I've been responding about that.

The multiplying rules never come into play for the reasons listed above. If my argument in my first post was unclear, I'm sorry it confused you. Every single post has been an attempted clarification of said argument. Going back to the first post and saying "but that format and phrasing is unclear, so everything else you've said is wrong" is kind of ridiculous.

It seems you're just trying to "win" an argument rather than explore all avenues of the rules as they might possibly interact RAW/RAI. The original question has been answered to my satisfaction due to your contributions and the contributions of others. Thanks for helping.

[Gauss]

DMO wrote:

Gauss wrote:

I have also banned LoR in it's RAW form from my table. It is an insane spell when used to double damage after dice are rolled.

Just curious how much this actually lowered the power of the spell, in your experience. This would only change how it would multiply critical damage, correct? It would still double all damage done normally, essentially making every hit a x2 crit.

It would actually make it MORE powerful if there were no crits, and you were somehow not bypassing DR by also smiting, since you would double before applying DR.

Not really. There are some DPR olympics type concepts revolving around LoR where people use things like a lance (x3 damage before crit with the proper feats) and then LoR to effectively get x6 damage (before crit).

By rewording the spell so that it is a multiplier to damage rolled rather than damage taken it is x4 damage (before crit) rather than the effective x6.

[Gauss]

Brain in a Jar, DMO is not the only person to have the interpretation that LoR is a multiplier to damage taken and not to damage (dice) rolled. There have been other threads on this.

The spell specifically states it is to damage taken. That would be after the rolling dice step where the rule you keep citing is applied.

As I have stated, I believe the intent is as you state, but the wording is not.

Edit: here is a link where people contrasted it with vulnerability...4 years ago

I am not saying they are right, I am saying that this is not a new idea. It has been around as long as the spell has. The spell's wording is what creates this question and many people read it to be 'takes' not 'deals'. "deals' would follow the extra dice (multiplier) rule. Takes does not.

[Brain in a Jar]

Then why can nobody show me a link for why Litany works that way.

All i've seen from both of these forums is just people claiming it works this way and ignores the Multiplier rule.

I mean i fully understand what you are saying i just don't think your correct.

For now i guess we will both just keep our ideas.

[Canthin]

Brain in a Jar wrote:

Even if that were true. THE MOMENT that you were to get a Critical Hit you have to follow the rules for Multiplying.

I'm not sure I follow you here. You stated earlier that Vulnerability is after the damage is dealt

Spoiler:

My Pyro-Paladin uses Litany on a evil foe that is vulnerable to fire with a fire attack that is a critical hit and the evil guy has resist 10 fire from a magic ring.

Base Damage: 10 Fire (x1)
Litany: 20 Fire (x2)
Critical: 30 Fire (x3)

So my Crit/Litany deals 30 Fire.

Evil guy then resists 10 and only takes 20 Fire which is then hit with +50% for a grand total of 30 Fire.

By your math, the damage dealt was 30, but the damage taken after 10 resistance was 20, AND THEN 30 after vulnerability was accounted for.

But you just said that even if it did work like vulnerability it would use the multipler rules as soon as a crit was confirmed. That would change your entire example.

I agree that the wording is wonky since "+50%" isn't the same as "x .5", but I also think it would have been weird to say "subject takes +100% damage".

I believe RAW you calculate how much damage you WOULD HAVE DEALT to someone without this spell active and once that is all said and done (including crits), you just double it for how much damage they ACTUALLY take (like Vulnerability).

If someone crits with fire spell against something with fire vulnerability, the multiplying rules don't come into play right?

To be honest, as a GM, I would prefer more things like this because math after the fact (DR, Resistance, etc.) is easier when you calculate it and not them. If they have to calculate in something that might not be in effect, things get super wonky.

Spoiler:

Detect Evil against a LN cleric of Asmodeus returns a "true" result, but LoR wouldn't deal double damage. Since the Detect Evil was true, the paladin doesn't know that his damage isn't doubled until they attack the first time, so just asking how much they deal and then add/subtracting/etc for DR, Resistance, etc. afterwards is easier than having the player give you the number of damage they think they dealt and then making you reverse engineer the number for how much damage they actually dealt...

[Brain in a Jar]

My confusion at this point is why the multiplier rule is ignored.

I understand where people are coming from with the interpretation that Litany is done after. I get how someone can reach that idea, i don't think it's silly to think that.

I just don't understand why the multiplier is ignored. Litany does make it "double damage" which leads me to the multiplier rules.

At this point i don't care if i'm right or wrong with my initial stance i just want some rules to back that stuff up.

We have lots of people telling me it works a certain way based on assumptions of wording. I just wanted a rule citation to support that claim.

The only reason i'm sticking with the multiplier rule is because no one else has provided any support in the rules for their claim.

Then there is the fact that even though Litany says "takes double damage", other such wording wouldn't make sense in the same context.

Acid:

You can throw a flask of acid as a splash weapon. Treat this attack as a ranged touch attack with a range increment of 10 feet. A direct hit deals 1d6 points of acid damage. Every creature within 5 feet of the point where the acid hits takes 1 point of acid damage from the splash.

Alchemist's Fire:

Alchemist's fire is a mix of several volatile liquids that ignite when exposed to air. You can throw a flask of alchemist's fire as a splash weapon. Treat this attack as a ranged touch attack with a range increment of 10 feet.

A direct hit deals 1d6 points of fire damage. Every creature within 5 feet of the point where the flask hits takes 1 point of fire damage from the splash. On the round following a direct hit, the target takes an additional 1d6 points of damage. If desired, the target can use a full-round action to attempt to extinguish the flames before taking this additional damage. Extinguishing the flames requires a DC 15 Reflex save. Rolling on the ground provides the target a +2 bonus on the save. Leaping into a large body of water or magically extinguishing the flames automatically smothers the fire.

If damage taken means what you actually take then can you resist either of these or is that just damage that can't be ignored?

Wall of Fire:

An immobile, blazing curtain of shimmering violet fire springs into existence. One side of the wall, selected by you, sends forth waves of heat, dealing 2d4 points of fire damage to creatures within 10 feet and 1d4 points of fire damage to those past 10 feet but within 20 feet. The wall deals this damage when it appears, and to all creatures in the area on your turn each round. In addition, the wall deals 2d6 points of fire damage + 1 point of fire damage per caster level (maximum +20) to any creature passing through it. The wall deals double damage to undead creatures.

If you evoke the wall so that it appears where creatures are, each creature takes damage as if passing through the wall. If any 5-foot length of wall takes 20 points or more of cold damage in 1 round, that length goes away. (Do not divide cold damage by 2, as normal for objects.)

Wall of fire can be made permanent with a permanency spell. A permanent wall of fire that is extinguished by cold damage becomes inactive for 10 minutes, then reforms at normal strength.

So how does Wall of Fire function in your example. In the first part it mentions people that pass though the wall are "dealt" damage; in the second part it mentions that they "take" damage.

Go ahead search the SRD for the phrase: takes damage.
It shows up alot and doesn't always seem to mean the same thing as the interpretation given in this thread. That or all spells/effects/etc do damage that can't be stopped by resistance etc.

This is why i question the interpretation given to me that "damage taken" or "takes damage" is somehow special in the context of Litany .

[Gauss]

Brain in a Jar, I have a question for you:

Does Litany of Righteousness double all damage (including extra damage dice such as sneak attack)?

The wording of the spell would indicate, yes.

[Brain in a Jar]

I would say no and here is why.

"Multiplying Damage

Sometimes you multiply damage by some factor, such as on a critical hit. Roll the damage (with all modifiers) multiple times and total the results.

Note: When you multiply damage more than once, each multiplier works off the original, unmultiplied damage. So if you are asked to double the damage twice, the end result is three times the normal damage.

Exception: Extra damage dice over and above a weapon's normal damage are never multiplied."

This is from the Combat section of the rules.

[Gauss]

Ok, so what about non-weapons? Does a fireball get doubled?

Again, the answer is yes. The spell is doubling damage taken. Not rolling extra damage.

You keep going back to that without looking at the spell. Specific trumps general and in this case it is specifically doubling damage taken, not damage rolled. In fact, that is the entire problem with your response. At no point are you rolling extra dice since the spell is not causing anyone to deal double damage.

[Brain in a Jar]

Gauss wrote:

Ok, so what about non-weapons? Does a fireball get doubled?

Again, the answer is yes. The spell is doubling damage taken. Not rolling extra damage.

You keep going back to that without looking at the spell. Specific trumps general and in this case it is specifically doubling damage taken, not damage rolled. In fact, that is the entire problem with your response. At no point are you rolling extra dice since the spell is not causing anyone to deal double damage.

I've read the spell and even quoted it in full a few times in this thread.

It never says anything about "doubling damage taken". It says "takes double damage" and as i showcased above "takes damage" is not used in the same context you and others have said.

Look at how Acid, Alchemist's Fire, and Wall of Fire are worded, among other results when searched for.

If what you say is true then the splash damage from those can't be resisted or anything else since they say "takes damage" the same way that Litany is worded.

How do you explain those?
Also please cite something from the rules to support your claim.

[DMO]

Brain in a Jar wrote:

Look at how Acid, Alchemist's Fire, and Wall of Fire are worded, among other results when searched for.

If what you say is true then the splash damage from those can't be resisted or anything else since they say "takes damage" the same way that Litany is worded.
How do you explain those?
Also please cite something from the rules to support your claim.

DR, Resistance, vulnerability, and LoR are all things that modify damage taken. Your damage taken starts a 1 in the case of an acid flask splash hit. It is then modified by any applicable modifiers that modify damage taken. In all the modifiers I know off the top of my head, they are special qualities or buffs/debuffs specific to the creature.

The descriptions assume that the creature does not have any specific special qualities. It would take a lot of words to put every possible creature quality that a specific item might intact with into every description in the game. There would also have to be constant rewriting.

[TriOmegaZero]

Everyone I have ever seen has multiplied the end damage by 2. I have no idea if this was intended or not, or if that is how the rules actually mean it to be done. I do agree that the spell could specifically override the general rule about multiplying.

[Byakko]

The intent of the Damage Multiplying rules it to limit how much such factors can compound and scale to unreasonable heights.

While the wording of this spell is a little off, I think it's fairly obvious that it should be read as another case of damage doubling, and stack additively with other factors.

[Bomanz]

Is there a TL;DR answer yet?

[DMO]

Bomanz wrote:

Is there a TL;DR answer yet?

The general consensus seems to be yes, RAW, it works like vulnerability, but perhaps that is not RAI.

Gauss wrote:

RAW: The OP is correct. This is not in the damage dice step, it is in the taking damage step which is after damage is rolled.

The multiplier rule is applied before damage is rolled (to determine what you roll). LoR is after damage is rolled and before it is applied.
RAI: I believe this is a case of bad wording. It should not be 'taking' and it should be the regular multiplier.
As an aside, I have seen multiple people read it as double damage after dice are rolled. The OP is not alone in this thinking.

As with all muddy RAW/RAI discussions, expect table variance as to how it works in practice.

[_Ozy_]

So, a spell that is supposed to 'double the damage that is taken' will actually only increase damage by 50% when critting with a x2 weapon, 33% when critting with a x3 weapon, and 25% when critting with a x4 weapon?

Is that what people are claiming? That the spell is literally wrong when it says 'double damage'?

[TriOmegaZero]

_Ozy_ wrote:

That the spell is literally wrong when it says 'double damage'?

Depends on if you are using the dictionary definition of that, or the d20 game rule definition.

[_Ozy_]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

_Ozy_ wrote:

That the spell is literally wrong when it says 'double damage'?

Depends on if you are using the dictionary definition of that, or the d20 game rule definition.

Does it? There's no indication that crit multipliers and Litany of Righteousness affect the same damage numbers, and therefore 'stack' using the d20 multiplication rules.

Crit mults don't multiply precision damage or weapon 'rider' damage like flaming/frost that adds additional damage dice.

Litany of Righteousness doubles all of that damage, therefore it is inappropriate to merely increment the crit mult, they are two completely different effects with completely different mechanics.

Might as well argue that the 1.5x str damage multiplier for two handed weapons is also not multiplied directly by critical hits, or empowered spells that crit aren't multiplied directly.

[CWheezy]

_Ozy_ wrote:

So, a spell that is supposed to 'double the damage that is taken' will actually only increase damage by 50% when critting with a x2 weapon, 33% when critting with a x3 weapon, and 25% when critting with a x4 weapon?

Is that what people are claiming? That the spell is literally wrong when it says 'double damage'?

That is how spirited charge works.

With a lance, a crit is not x3 x3, a crit is x5 (adding x-1 minimum 1 to the crit modifier).

I can imagine the design meeting for this spell though;

"Paladins do not have many smites per day, and that's sad"

"Yeah but smites are super awesome, they should be limited"

"But! What if we game them a spell that is like a super smite at level 2? Then they could have more smites!"

"Wow I never thought of it like that, ship it!"

[_Ozy_]

So, when you crit, you don't multiply the full 1.5x strength damage from two handed weapons?

[DMO]

CWheezy wrote:

_Ozy_ wrote:

So, a spell that is supposed to 'double the damage that is taken' will actually only increase damage by 50% when critting with a x2 weapon, 33% when critting with a x3 weapon, and 25% when critting with a x4 weapon?

Is that what people are claiming? That the spell is literally wrong when it says 'double damage'?

That is how spirited charge works.

With a lance, a crit is not x3 x3, a crit is x5 (adding x-1 minimum 1 to the crit modifier).

I can imagine the design meeting for this spell though;

"Paladins do not have many smites per day, and that's sad"

"Yeah but smites are super awesome, they should be limited"

"But! What if we game them a spell that is like a super smite at level 2? Then they could have more smites!"

"Wow I never thought of it like that, ship it!"

Key difference being Spirit Charge modifying the damage you deal (damage rolls of the PC), while LoR, and other things like it (vulnerability, DR, resistance, etc.) modify the damage the creature takes (post damage rolls, once the number is passed to the GM).

Since you are not stacking multipliers onto your roll with LoR, it does not work like spirited charge. The differences between damage dealt vs taken are discussed more in depth above.