ravenloft - does this allow a save?

[Thac0 Redeye]

I am starting expedition to castle ravenloft next week and had all my players create 6th level characters.
I have one player who has a dwarf cleric3/fighter3. He is using the Lightbringer cleric power that hurts undead using a turn attempt instead of turning. the power as listed in the EtCR replaces the standard turn and deals 1d6 damage per level to all undead in 30', allowing a will save based on clerics CHA+level etc. He also took the glory domain which adds 1d6 to damage and +2 to the save. He also took the feat from BOED called Exalted Turning. This is listed as adding 1d6 damage in addition to the normal turning effect.
Here's the issue. My player believes that only the "turn" damage (1d6 per level) is allowed the save. Not the extra from the glory domain or the feat. I think it all should because its very much like fireball or other burst type spells.

Help - what does everyone think and why? I need good arguments either way.
thanks

[Daefos]

If you made your Reflex save against a Fireball spell cast by a Wizard 6/Fighter 4 with the Practiced Spellcaster feat (+4 to CL, up to HD), no one would suggest that you take (6d6/2) + 4d6 damage just because some of the damage is the result of a feat. The fact that he has used a domain and a feat to increase the benefit of his Lightbringer damage does not mean anything; it's all one attack, against which the targets are allowed a saving throw. The onus is on him to show why these bonuses are exempt from the rules regarding saving throws, not on you to prove that a rule that says [X] says [X].

And strictly speaking, the Glory domain would not increase the damage he deals. It boosts "turning damage", which is part of the base Turn Undead ability, and Lightbringer makes no allowances for carrying it over like it does for other aspects of boosts to Turn Undead. It's a bit pedantic, and allowing it is a perfectly reasonable house-rule, but if you're looking for wiggle room then by strict RAW, it doesn't work.

[PacMan2247]

If you made your Reflex save against a Fireball spell cast by a Wizard 6/Fighter 4 with the Practiced Spellcaster feat (+4 to CL, up to HD), no one would suggest that you take (6d6/2) + 4d6 damage just because some of the damage is the result of a feat. The fact that he has used a domain and a feat to increase the benefit of his Lightbringer damage does not mean anything; it's all one attack, against which the targets are allowed a saving throw. The onus is on him to show why these bonuses are exempt from the rules regarding saving throws, not on you to prove that a rule that says [X] says [X].

And strictly speaking, the Glory domain would not increase the damage he deals. It boosts "turning damage", which is part of the base Turn Undead ability, and Lightbringer makes no allowances for carrying it over like it does for other aspects of boosts to Turn Undead. It's a bit pedantic, and allowing it is a perfectly reasonable house-rule, but if you're looking for wiggle room then by strict RAW, it doesn't work.

Seconded on all points.

[Fouredged Sword]

They all add damage to the attack. The attack allows the target to save to resist or remove it's damage. Damage added to the attack is damage added to the attack and falls under the same rules as the attack damage.

Or we go off and get into wierd areas like claiming the extra damage effects non-undead because only the turning itself has the undead only clause.

[Thac0 Redeye]

just what I thought.
thanks everyone.

[SirNMN]

The undead also get their turn resistance as resistance to the damage.