|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Support Benefit
Your bear mauls your enemies when you create an opening. Until the start of your next turn, each time you hit a creature in the bear’s reach with a Strike, the creature takes 1d8 slashing damage from the bear. If your bear is nimble or savage, the slashing damage increases to 2d8.
Since the damage is coming from the bear rather than you, I'd say it isn't doubled when you crit.
|
Yes, the support ability dealing bonus damage on a Strike cooks it into the Strike and since that damage isn't only applied on a Crit it should also double for the same reason that Sneak Attack or the additional Damage that Rage gives you would.
The damage, be it flavored as being from the bear or not, is still added to the TOTAL Damage dealt by that Strike before Damage Reduction is applied too, it's not really supposed be treated as two different sources of damage, simply that your bear makes the Strike itself deal more damage.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your reasoning for why a bear's support action doesn't get doubled on a critical hit applies equally to almost all bonus damage in the game, such as sneak attack.
You are focusing on the wrong part of the rules quote - we're not talking about when to double damage, we are talking about which damage gets doubled. And the quote is "you roll the damage normally, adding all the normal modifiers, bonuses, and penalties. Then you double..." with the only exception mentioned to not double being "Benefits you gain specifically from a critical hit"
Is the bear support damage a benefit you gain specifically from a critical hit? No. So it gets doubled.
The bear's damage isn't part of the attack's damage, either.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that shroud and Taja make good points as far as rules go, but if there's any confusion with drake's counterargument, it might be useful to try to parse intent. Not necessary, in my opinion, but perhaps useful.
To me, Animal Companion support benefits are clearly effects originating purely from the animal. The fact that they trigger on a strike comes across as an easy way to determine who you're fighting, fictionally represented by the Animal Companion using your attacks as guidance and not being able to capitalise on a miss. They do not, however, come across as the animal managing to actually add effects to your strike with arrow or blade (with a few exceptions that are explicitly mentioned to be doing so). In that vein, I don't think it's reasonable to expect that you hitting super-accurately would allow your Companion to do anything more than it was gonna do anyway. It's not like your Ape gets to be scarier on a crit, so I'm not sure that the Bear, which already has a great support benefit that advances with nimble/savage, should hit any harder.
Those support benefits that ARE more impactful on a crit success, being Wolf and Vulture, seem to be the exceptions and are explicitly called out as doing so. Vulture is especially weird, but makes sense given that a more severe wound is more susceptible to infection, while the Wolf is is probably better at distracting someone who's in greater pain (though isn't turning the tide of battle either way).
That said, none of that fiction-focused opinion really matters and I'm just trying to demonstrate that the intent is probably in-line with shroudb's interpretation. I also think that it's the correct interpretation of the text, since the bear is explicitly the one doing the damage, not adding a bonus.
I don't double bear support damage on a crit. I don't see why it would be. It is damage on a hit, not how well the bear hit. Most abilities like the bear ability would state it would double on a crit. It also may not be the same damage type as the weapon you dealt the damage with.
I do not believe you double bear damage on a crit. I see no ruling that supports it. It is not part of the strike. It does not receive any benefits from your strike. It is an amount of damage from a support ability. The same as the bird's persistent damage does not double on a critical hit.
As usual with these rulings, run it as you like. But I believe that the ability states exactly what it does and would have made it clear if the damage doubled on a critical strike.
The bear's damage isn't part of the attack's damage, either.
Yep. The bear's support action is it's own instance of damage: for instance, resistance 2 to all damage would take 2 points off the characters damage and 2 off the bears damage.
So if the bear is under a blessing, say, that makes all its Strikes do 1 point of good damage, does it get that in its support attack?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So if the bear is under a blessing, say, that makes all its Strikes do 1 point of good damage, does it get that in its support attack?
No, because the bear is not striking it's master is.
Hunters edge would also trigger off of a bears support ability, if it's interpreted as the bear is the one doing the damage. So there's good and bad to each version.
Hunters edge would also trigger off of a bears support ability, if it's interpreted as the bear is the one doing the damage. So there's good and bad to each version.
The wording of the Bears support ability is does damage. Hunters edge triggers off a hit. That is dubious
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hunters edge would also trigger off of a bears support ability, if it's interpreted as the bear is the one doing the damage. So there's good and bad to each version.The wording of the Bears support ability is does damage. Hunters edge triggers off a hit. That is dubious
I'm not sure what's "dubious". Hit just means an attack succeeded, not that a roll to attack or a strike was made. Look at Magic Missile "It automatically hits and deals 1d4+1 force damage." By the wording of Hunters edge, a magic missile triggers it. IMO, it would odd [and "dubious"] to look at the bears support ability and not read it as an automatic hit like a magic missile. It'd be different if the requirement was a strike or a successful roll but it doesn't have that.
This also affects how defensive spells protect too: for instance a bears support ability ignores a Shattering Gem but a Fire Shield damages the bear.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hunters edge would also trigger off of a bears support ability, if it's interpreted as the bear is the one doing the damage. So there's good and bad to each version.The wording of the Bears support ability is does damage. Hunters edge triggers off a hit. That is dubiousI'm not sure what's "dubious". Hit just means an attack succeeded, not that a roll to attack or a strike was made. Look at Magic Missile "It automatically hits and deals 1d4+1 force damage." By the wording of Hunters edge, a magic missile triggers it. IMO, it would odd [and "dubious"] to look at the bears support ability and not read it as an automatic hit like a magic missile. It'd be different if the requirement was a strike or a successful roll but it doesn't have that.
This also affects how defensive spells protect too: for instance a bears support ability ignores a Shattering Gem but a Fire Shield damages the bear.
Hit (the game term) means that an attack roll has been made and succeeded. So the bear support ability can trigger off a spell attack roll but not a magic missile.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is a difference between the Bear's Support ability and say, the Horses.
Your bear mauls your enemies when you create
an opening. Until the start of your next turn, each time you
hit a creature in the bear’s reach with a Strike, the creature
takes 1d8 slashing damage from the bear. If your bear is
nimble or savage, the slashing damage increases to 2d8.
And...
Your horse adds momentum to your charge.
Until the start of your next turn, if you moved at least 10
feet on the action before your attack, add a circumstance
bonus to damage to that attack equal to twice the number of
damage dice. If your weapon already has the jousting weapon
trait, increase the trait’s damage bonus by 2 per die instead.
The Bear's Support benefit is pretty clear in stating that the damage comes from the Bear itself, and isn't added damage to your strike. It's sort of like an auto hitting minor AoO really. Since the Bear didn't roll an attack, imo it could never benefit from doubling due to a Critical Hit.
The Horse specifically adds it's extra damage to your strike, so that damage would be doubled on a crit like any other additive damage.
The Riding Drake also operates similarly to the Bear, stating that the support fire damage is coming directly from the Drake and not the player's strike.
Edit: The Bear's Support benefit would not trigger on any spell or non-Strike attack, like say a maneuver of some description, as it calls out hitting with a "Strike" specifically. Any activity that includes strikes are good to go though, so flurries and the like.
]
And...
Your horse adds momentum to your charge.
Until the start of your next turn, if you moved at least 10
feet on the action before your attack, add a circumstance
bonus to damage to that attack equal to twice the number of
damage dice. If your weapon already has the jousting weapon
trait, increase the trait’s damage bonus by 2 per die instead.
This example is not comparable to the bear. This adds damage to your own attack due to having a movement speed from your mount. Essentially adding more weight behind you jousting weapon.
The bear is just another example of adding damage to an attack, and I agree with the others that as with any damage that isn't specific damage on a crit, it gets doubled.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The bear is just another example of adding damage to an attack, and I agree with the others that as with any damage that isn't specific damage on a crit, it gets doubled.
I don't think that this is the case. It doesn't explicitly add to the attack, like, say, the Bird's does. The Bird is a better example, I think, than the Horse; the bonus is explicitly based on something the bird is doing to exploit the attack, like the Bear, but is adding the effect to your Strike, unlike the Bear.
Support Benefit The bird pecks at your foes’ eyes when you create an opening. Until the start of your next turn, your Strikes that damage a creature that your bird threatens also deal 1d4 persistent bleed damage, and the target is dazzled until it removes the bleed damage. If your bird is nimble or savage, the persistent bleed damage increases to 2d4.
Hit (the game term) means that an attack roll has been made and succeeded.Hunters edge would also trigger off of a bears support ability, if it's interpreted as the bear is the one doing the damage. So there's good and bad to each version.The wording of the Bears support ability is does damage. Hunters edge triggers off a hit. That is dubiousI'm not sure what's "dubious". Hit just means an attack succeeded, not that a roll to attack or a strike was made. Look at Magic Missile "It automatically hits and deals 1d4+1 force damage." By the wording of Hunters edge, a magic missile triggers it. IMO, it would odd [and "dubious"] to look at the bears support ability and not read it as an automatic hit like a magic missile. It'd be different if the requirement was a strike or a successful roll but it doesn't have that.
This also affects how defensive spells protect too: for instance a bears support ability ignores a Shattering Gem but a Fire Shield damages the bear.
Did you read magic missile? "It automatically hits and deals 1d4+1 force damage." What I bolded doesn't seem to agree with what you said.
Is there a specific quote where hit means a rolled attack only? Or does it mean a successful attack? Look at Force Bolt... "It automatically hits and deals 1d4+1 force damage to the target." The bears ability automatically hits, it just doesn't spell it out like these spells. If hit is a specific key word defined in the game, then spells like magic missile and force bolt are incorrectly written.
So the bear support ability can trigger off a spell attack roll but not a magic missile.
Now, the issue with activating off a magic missile is the Strike requirement, not the hit requirement. My comment was on "Hunters edge triggers off a hit", not anything about a "bear support ability can trigger off a spell attack roll but not a magic missile": I even said "IMO, it would odd [and "dubious"] to look at the bears support ability and not read it as an automatic hit like a magic missile. It'd be different if the requirement was a strike or a successful roll but it doesn't have that", noting that a Strike requirement in Hunters Edge would means a magic missile wouldn't trigger and the Bears ability has such a requirement.
Your bear mauls your enemies when you create an opening. Until the start of your next turn, each time you hit a creature in the bear’s reach with a Strike, the creature takes 1d8 slashing damage from the bear.
It requires both a hit and a strike, while Hunters Edge only requires a hit.
You have trained to aim for your prey’s weak points. The first time you hit your hunted prey in a round, you also deal 1d8 additional precision damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And that brings me to the idea "It doesn't explicitly add to the attack": I think this comes down to technical language vs. casual language.
I don't agree. Look at these examples:
"Until the start of your next turn, your Strikes that damage a creature in your scorpion's reach also deal 1d6 persistent poison damage."
"Until the start of your next turn, each time you Strike while riding the drake and hit a creature in the drake's reach, the creature takes 1d4 fire damage from the drake."
Read with casual language, the scorpion ability adds damage to your strike while drake deals damage "from the drake".
See, IMO casual language works against your argument with most animal companion support abilities that deal damage on your Strike specifically noting "from your" animal which to the casual reader MEANS "from your" animal and not somehow buffing your strike. Without those specific call-outs to the damage being "from" the animal, it'd be plausible to go with a "casual language, but with those in there I don't see it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
]
And...
Your horse adds momentum to your charge.
Until the start of your next turn, if you moved at least 10
feet on the action before your attack, add a circumstance
bonus to damage to that attack equal to twice the number of
damage dice. If your weapon already has the jousting weapon
trait, increase the trait’s damage bonus by 2 per die instead.This example is not comparable to the bear. This adds damage to your own attack due to having a movement speed from your mount. Essentially adding more weight behind you jousting weapon.
The bear is just another example of adding damage to an attack, and I agree with the others that as with any damage that isn't specific damage on a crit, it gets doubled.
Okay, so which is true then?
Both Abilities add damage to your attack, and are then doubled on a crit or One ability explicitly adds damage to your attack and the other doesn't?
You can't say that these two things are not the same, but then say that they are treated the same for the purposes of a critical hit.
Or does the following make sense:
I have an orange that is Orange.
I have an apple that is Red.
They are both Orange.
|
|
Those support benefits that ARE more impactful on a crit success, being Wolf and Vulture, seem to be the exceptions and are explicitly called out as doing so. Vulture is especially weird, but makes sense given that a more severe wound is more susceptible to infection, while the Wolf is is probably better at distracting someone who's in greater pain (though isn't turning the tide of battle either way).Actually the vulture's support benefit is based on the target failing a saving throw, with a critical failure making the effect sickened 2 rather than 1. I don't know how that specifically compares to you making a crit success on a Strike, but it's still a scaling effect, and a pretty good one at that. Plus, it's triggered by your hits, not Strikes, making it great for casters.
...Good point. Jeez, don't know how I missed that one. Nice catch with the hits v strikes thing!