Mortal Bane, Scorching Ray

[Yogibear41]

If I have Scorching Ray as a SLA and can fire multiple rays, what happens if I apply Mortal Bane to it? Does each ray get an additional 2d6 damage, does each creature I hit get an additional 2d6 damage, or is it just a flat 2d6 damage one time no matter what.

Example1: I cast a Mortal Bane Scorching ray shooting all 3 rays at a human fighter. Does each ray do 6d6, or 1 ray does 6d6 and two rays do 4d6.

Example2: I cast a Mortal Bane Scorching Ray Shooting 1 ray at three targets, hitting a human fighter, a dwarf fighter, and an elf ranger. Does each ray do 6d6, or 1 ray does 6d6 and two rays do 4d6.


Also while on the subject of SLAs I am looking for other feats/items that could boost their damage output. I know about things like Empower and Maximize SLAs already, looking for things that just add more damage dice in a similar way to mortal bane (actually a feat that increased the damage vs outsiders and undead would be nifty, basically a reverse mortal bane)

[Gruftzwerg]

..a damaging spell-like ability that deals 2d6 points of additional damage...
The "additional damage" has no restrictions set by the ability. Nor are there any indicators that it is precision damage, thus that rule is also out of the window.

You get the "additional damage" every time the (single use of the ) ability does damage. Doesn't matter if on the same or different targets.

So all 3 rays from the single mortalbane scorching ray get the additional damage.

___


Escalation Mage (prc) is a good option to boost SLAs. It gives multiple meta like abilities (including Quicken!) that also explicitly work with SLAs (class lvl / day). It's only 6 lvls long and gives as capstone a free use of each ability per day.

[Khedrac]

If the feat adds 2d6 damage to the spell, then it can only apply to one ray - any more than that and you have added 4d6 or more to the damage.

Area of effect spells are different because while they still only do one lot of damage, they do it to everyone in the area.

[Gruftzwerg]

If the feat adds 2d6 damage to the spell, then it can only apply to one ray - any more than that and you have added 4d6 or more to the damage.

Area of effect spells are different because while they still only do one lot of damage, they do it to everyone in the area.

It doesn't matter how many times the spell does nor if it is single target or AoE. If a damage boost is somehow limited, it is spelled out in the rules (like "only once" or "only the first target"...). Mortalbane has no such restriction.
It's a flat "additional damage" that applies every time you deal damage. No restriction is set.
Again, this is not precision damage, nor do I see you calling out any other rule your argument is based on.

You can even abuse Mortalbane for damage over time abilities.

[Rebel7284]

It doesn't matter how many times the spell does nor if it is single target or AoE. If a damage boost is somehow limited, it is spelled out in the rules (like "only once" or "only the first target"...). Mortalbane has no such restriction.
It's a flat "additional damage" that applies every time you deal damage. No restriction is set.
Again, this is not precision damage, nor do I see you calling out any other rule your argument is based on.

You can even abuse Mortalbane for damage over time abilities.

Clearly there are multiple ways of reading the same text. To me, scorching ray, the SLA, deals a certain amount of damage. Whether it deals it with one, two, or three rays, should not matter for a mechanical description like Mortalbane. If Mortalbane applied to any ray, that would be different, but it applies to an SLA which means that the total damage of the SLA increases, not damage of each ray. How exactly you want to distribute that damage increase is up to you and your DM.

[Elves]

Usually it wouldn't work, because per RC, extra damage only applies to the "first attack" of a weaponlike spell.

In the specific case of scorching ray, all the rays are simultaneous. Since there's no first attack, the rule above may or may not apply.

[Troacctid]

Only the first ray gets the additional damage.

[Rebel7284]

Only the first ray gets the additional damage.

Why first instead of any one?

[Elves]

“Give $5 to the first old lady who steps through the door.” Three old ladies step through the door at the same moment, none ahead of the others.

Do they all get $5, or do none get $5?

This is where you need King Solomon or something, aka the DM.

[Troacctid]

Why first instead of any one?
Here's the relevant rule.

Some weaponlike spells can strike multiple times in the same round. When the caster gets a bonus on damage with such spells (including sneak attack damage), the extra damage applies only to the first attack, whether that attack hits or not.

For example, a 7th-level sorcerer/3rd-level rogue with Point Blank Shot makes a scorching ray attack at less than 30 feet (two rays, each requiring a ranged touch attack roll and dealing 4d6 points of fire damage). If the first ray hits, it deals 6d6+1 points of fire damage (4d6 normal + 2d6 sneak attack + 1 for Point Blank Shot), while each subsequent ray deals only 4d6 points of fire damage whether the first ray hits or not.

[Elves]

As we discussed in Discord though, the example is wrong about how scorching ray works. "All bolts must be fired simultaneously." There is no first attack or any subsequent attacks.

[Crake]

As we discussed in Discord though, the example is wrong about how scorching ray works. "All bolts must be fired simultaneously." There is no first attack or any subsequent attacks.

"The first" is simply referring to whichever one you roll first. The fact that the bolts must all be fired simultaneously simply means your targeting choices must be made all at once, rather than being able to change your choices as you go based on hits/misses/damage dealt.

[Gruftzwerg]

Here's the relevant rule.

The rule in CAr (p86) you quoted doesn't apply here: (since it is for "bonus damage")


A mortalbane ability is a damaging spell-like ability that deals 2d6 points of additional damage

additional damage != bonus damage

"Bonus" is defined. "Additional" ain't defined and doesn't fall under the "bonus damage" restriction by RAW. It could be seen as indicator for RAI, but not for RAW.

Thus, by RAW whenever the single use of an SLA (no matter how many times it hits) deals damage, it gains the additional damage.

[Beni-Kujaku]

Whenever someone argues that additional and bonus are not synonymous, I lose a bit more faith in humanity and specifically in forumites.

Seriously, please read the rules in good faith and do not try to spin every single word to your advantage. D&D isn't perfectly written, that's the whole point of this forum, but when the intention is clear, do heed it.

[Gruftzwerg]

Whenever someone argues that additional and bonus are not synonymous, I lose a bit more faith in humanity and specifically in forumites.

Seriously, please read the rules in good faith and do not try to spin every single word to your advantage. D&D isn't perfectly written, that's the whole point of this forum, but when the intention is clear, do heed it.

Reading the rules in good faith is RAI. RAW doesn't care about that^^

Again, this is not a play advice. Just what is RAW. One word is defined, the other not. One has restrictions due to being defined, the other not. And by RAW "additional" doesn't follow the rules set for "bonus".
If you ignore this, you block options that would be normally possible. I mean, people here just assume due to the similarity of the words that the intention of the authors must have been the same. But that is just an assumption. But what if this is not the chase? What if they wanted to use explicitly not "bonus" to bypass the limitation it would set? They would need to use a similar word that doesn't have 3.5 specific restrictions. Like "additional" I would assume.. ;)

[Elves]

"The first" is simply referring to whichever one you roll first. The fact that the bolts must all be fired simultaneously simply means your targeting choices must be made all at once, rather than being able to change your choices as you go based on hits/misses/damage dealt.
To resolve the spell accurately though you should roll all the attacks in a single hand. Even if you don't have enough dice to do that, you're simulating rolling them all at once.

[Crake]

Reading the rules in good faith is RAI. RAW doesn't care about that^^

Again, this is not a play advice. Just what is RAW. One word is defined, the other not. One has restrictions due to being defined, the other not. And by RAW "additional" doesn't follow the rules set for "bonus".
If you ignore this, you block options that would be normally possible. I mean, people here just assume due to the similarity of the words that the intention of the authors must have been the same. But that is just an assumption. But what if this is not the chase? What if they wanted to use explicitly not "bonus" to bypass the limitation it would set? They would need to use a similar word that doesn't have 3.5 specific restrictions. Like "additional" I would assume.. ;)

"Bonus damage" is not a defined glossary term though. Even sneak attack says "extra" damage in it's ability description, and never once uses the term "bonus", and complete arcane considers that "bonus" damage, so clearly "bonus" is a broader term than you're trying to make it out to be.

Scratch that. "Bonus" (not "bonus damage") IS in fact a defined game term. It is defined as "A positive modifier to a die roll." Thus, anything that fits that description is a bonus. And if the dice roll is damage, it is thus a "damage bonus" "Bonus on damage" (to use the exact wording from complete arcane). Hence, anything that provides a positive modifier to a damage roll is a "damage bonus" "Bonus on damage", regardless of the terms used in the ability's description. Sneak attack, mortalbane, power shot, warmage's edge, all of those grant a positive modifier to damage and thus they are all "damage bonuses" "Bonuses on damage", despite sneak attack for example, never once using the word bonus in it's description. Complete arcane confirms this when it calls sneak attack bonus damage, and thus these conventions can be followed forward to account for bonuses such as mortalbane.


To resolve the spell accurately though you should roll all the attacks in a single hand. Even if you don't have enough dice to do that, you're simulating rolling them all at once.

Even if you rolled all the dice simultaneously, you as a player out of game aren't omnipotent, omniscient and all knowing to be able to instantly resolve all the rolls at once. Not to mention if multiple targets get involved, and you have to figure out a way to determine which dice belongs to which target if your dice look similar. Spin it how you like, being constrained by time and the sequential nature of events, one of the rays is going to resolve first.

[Crake]

It's pretty easy to roll differently colored dice and say ahead of time which will apply to which target.
Not having enough dice doesn't change how the rule works. It just means you represent it through imperfect means. If you only have 1 d20, you'd have to roll it sequentially, but for the purpose of the game it's happening simultaneously.

Yeah, but, as I said, you as a person are still constrained by the stream of time. Even if you have different colored dice, and roll them all at the same time, you still have to look at them one by one and add up the bonuses to the dice one by one, and then compare it to the AC of the enemy one by one, and then apply the damage one by one. The fact that it happens simultaneously in game doesn't change this.

[Elves]

Even if you rolled all the dice simultaneously, you as a player out of game aren't omnipotent, omniscient and all knowing to be able to instantly resolve all the rolls at once. Not to mention if multiple targets get involved, and you have to figure out a way to determine which dice belongs to which target if your dice look similar. Spin it how you like, being constrained by time and the sequential nature of events, one of the rays is going to resolve first.
It's pretty easy to roll differently colored dice and say ahead of time which will apply to which target.
Not having enough dice doesn't change how the rule works. It just means you represent it through imperfect means. If you only have 1 d20, you have to roll it sequentially, but for the purpose of the game it's happening simultaneously.

[Crake]

It's pretty easy to roll differently colored dice and say ahead of time which will apply to which target.
Not having enough dice doesn't change how the rule works. It just means you represent it through imperfect means. If you only have 1 d20, you have to roll it sequentially, but for the purpose of the game it's happening simultaneously.

Ahem... I'm guessing you accidentally double posted, and then deleted your first post, but i snuck my reply in between them. Anyway, see up for my reply.

[Gruftzwerg]

Scratch that. "Bonus" (not "bonus damage") IS in fact a defined game term. It is defined as "A positive modifier to a die roll." Thus, anything that fits that description is a bonus. And if the dice roll is damage, it is thus a "damage bonus" "Bonus on damage" (to use the exact wording from complete arcane). Hence, anything that provides a positive modifier to a damage roll is a "damage bonus" "Bonus on damage", regardless of the terms used in the ability's description. Sneak attack, mortalbane, power shot, warmage's edge, all of those grant a positive modifier to damage and thus they are all "damage bonuses" "Bonuses on damage", despite sneak attack for example, never once using the word bonus in it's description. Complete arcane confirms this when it calls sneak attack bonus damage, and thus these conventions can be followed forward to account for bonuses such as mortalbane.


I have to disagree here.



Modifiers
A modifier is any bonus or penalty applying to a die roll. A positive modifier is a bonus, and a negative modifier is a penalty.

Example modifiers to a dice roll (yDz):
positive modifier: "+ x bonus" to "yDz"
negative modifier: "- x penalty" to "yDz"

A modifier is a flat value to your dice roll. It's not additional dice to a dice roll!

Mortalbane "deals 2d6 points of additional damage ", thus it is additional dice to a dice roll. Not subject to the limitations imposed by the stacking rules.

[Crake]

A modifier is a flat value to your dice roll.

Nothing in the rules you posted said that a modifier had to be a flat value. Additionally, sneak attack is described as a bonus to damage in complete arcane, and it is a dice roll, again, despite never actually using the word "bonus" to describe the damage in the ability's description.

[Elves]

Yeah, but, as I said, you as a person are still constrained by the stream of time. Even if you have different colored dice, and roll them all at the same time, you still have to look at them one by one and add up the bonuses to the dice one by one, and then compare it to the AC of the enemy one by one, and then apply the damage one by one. The fact that it happens simultaneously in game doesn't change this.
When you personally resolve the math in your head isn't the same as when it's resolved ingame.

If you were making a computer game they'd be simultaneous processes. Maybe as a single person you have to process the data sequentially, but that doesn't change how the rules work, any more than if you don't have enough dice to roll at once.

[Gruftzwerg]

Nothing in the rules you posted said that a modifier had to be a flat value. Additionally, sneak attack is described as a bonus to damage in complete arcane, and it is a dice roll, again, despite never actually using the word "bonus" to describe the damage in the ability's description.
:edit: a modifier (mathematically speaking) is always a flat value. This is not sole d&d specific. It doesn't talk about a "modifier range", it talks about an explicit "modifier" (single value). :edit:

From the Rule Compendium:


Extra damage beyond a weapon’s normal damage, such as that dealt by precision damage abilities (see page 42) or the flaming property of a flaming sword, isn’t multiplied when you score a critical hit.
We have now defined "Extra Damage" and "Bonus" Damage. Still no definition for "additional damage".
Note that Sneak Attack is marked as "extra damage".



Any weaponlike spell that can be used with precision damage, such as sneak attack, follows the normal rules for precision damage with a few alterations. Precision damage applies only in the round when the spell strikes—subsequent and continuing damage isn’t affected. Successful saving throws don’t affect precision damage unless the successful save negates the spell’s damage altogether. A successful precision damage attack with a weaponlike spell deals extra damage of the same type as the spell normally deals unless that spell deals ability damage or ability drain, or it bestows negative levels. Spells that fall into these categories instead deal extra hit point damage in the form of negative energy.
I think we can safely exclude Precision Damage.


Some weaponlike spells can strike multiple times in the same round. When the caster receives a bonus on damage rolls or some form of extra damage (such as precision damage) with such spells, the extra damage applies only on the first attack, whether that attack hits or not.
Again, by RAW sole bonus damage and extra damage are affected by this. A strict RAW reading implies that the undefined "additional damage" term is a way to bypass this restriction.

Sure, you can argue that it is 3.0 stuff with just bad editing. But that argument still remains RAI. It can be used for houserules thou. But RAW doesn't care for that as we know ;)

[Troacctid]

Sneak attack is obviously included, since it is used as an example twice.

[Metastachydium]

From the Rule Compendium:
Extra damage beyond a weapon’s normal damage, such as that dealt by precision damage abilities (see page 42) or the flaming property of a flaming sword, isn’t multiplied when you score a critical hit.


These are examples, though, and if the damage dealt by the flaming property of a weapon is extra damage, then it stands to reason that so is the damage dealt by the bane property. Mortalbane is essentially the same thing from a different source, so it can be argued that it is extra damage as per the rule you cited.

[Elves]

Yeah, the specific word doesn't matter, the important thing is whether it's a bonus to damage or an amount of damage in addition to and separate from the normal damage figure (usually meaning flat bonus vs variable). Mortalbane is the latter:

if a mortalbane cone of cold from a gelugon would normally deal 45 points of damage, it actually deals 45 + 2d6
not "if it would normally deal 10d6 it deals 12d6".

[Yogibear41]

What about the same question but using produce flame. Produce flame multiple times in one round with iteratives vs multiple uses of produce flame over several rounds.

[Troacctid]

What about the same question but using produce flame. Produce flame multiple times in one round with iteratives vs multiple uses of produce flame over several rounds.
The first attack each round gets the bonus.

[Crake]

The first attack each round gets the bonus.

Pretty sure rules compendium changed it so that if you use a full round action, the bonus damage applies to every attack, right? To achieve parity with standard full attacks? Or is that specific to precision damage and only precision damage?

[Gruftzwerg]

Yeah, the specific word doesn't matter, the important thing is whether it's a bonus to damage or an amount of damage in addition to and separate from the normal damage figure (usually meaning flat bonus vs variable). Mortalbane is the latter:

not "if it would normally deal 10d6 it deals 12d6".
As always in 3.5 things are really messy here...

Mortalbane deal +2d6 "additional" damage, while it alters the damage type to 50/50 at the same time...
These are not equal portions of damage. This means, the effect is not sole extra damage but also contains the dmg substitution. That would mean that the substitution wouldn't be restricted to the single target per turn rule? Feels fishy to me to handle the two effects of the same ability differently..

Further, elemental weapon damage enchantments seem to give "+1d6 bonus damage", while it is listed as Extra damage in the RC..
So now bonus dmg is also affected by this rule and can't crit??
I'm really loosing my orientation here atm. But maybe that's because I just woke up.. (and if I remember what last night happened while I was half asleep in the DMM thread, I better not bet on my interpretation now... ^^).

My bet is that the elemental weapon damage descriptions are falsely flagged as "bonus damage" and that "bonus damage" is not part of "extra damage".
Otherwise say bye bye to multiply your STR & PA bonuses on crits and more.
(I really just hope now that this is just me reading it wrong while waking up... this really feels like a headache now..)


Pretty sure rules compendium changed it so that if you use a full round action, the bonus damage applies to every attack, right? To achieve parity with standard full attacks? Or is that specific to precision damage and only precision damage?

Have a look at my last post. The RC quote is there and sadly it rules against multiple hits with bonus/extra/precision damage.

[Troacctid]

Pretty sure rules compendium changed it so that if you use a full round action, the bonus damage applies to every attack, right? To achieve parity with standard full attacks? Or is that specific to precision damage and only precision damage?
Nope, you're mistaken.

[Elves]

Further, elemental weapon damage enchantments seem to give "+1d6 bonus damage", while it is listed as Extra damage in the RC..
The rule we're discussing is for weaponlike spells only, and the "volley" rule is for precision damage only. The only restriction for flaming weapons is that the extra damage isn't multiplied on crit.


Otherwise say bye bye to multiply your STR & PA bonuses on crits and more.
STR + PA are damage bonuses, not extra damage, so they are multiplied on crits

[Gruftzwerg]

The rule we're discussing is for weaponlike spells only, and the "volley" rule is for precision damage only. The only restriction for flaming weapons is that the extra damage isn't multiplied on crit.


STR + PA are damage bonuses, not extra damage, so they are multiplied on crits

The Extra Damage rule is found on page 40 of the RC in the Critical Hits section (not sole for spells).


Extra damage beyond a weapon’s normal damage, such as that dealt by precision damage abilities (see page 42) or the flaming property of a flaming sword, isn’t multiplied when you score a critical hit.


Flaming weapons deal +1d6 points of bonus fire damage on a successful hit.

We have "bonus (fire) damage" as legal example for "extra damage" by RAW in the RC. Do you see why this is problematic?

Especially if you consider the paragraph before on the same page in the RC:

A critical hit means that you roll your damage more than once, with all your usual bonuses, and add the rolls together. Unless otherwise specified, the threat range for a critical hit on an attack roll is 20, and the multiplier is ×2.

How does this not contradict each other?^^

[Powerdork]

My copy of Rules Compendium (the digital release available on OneBookShelf, not sure if there were multiple printings) has a rule for "Multiplying Damage" on page 17, under the Damage header in the Attacks and Damage section.



Sometimes damage is multiplied, such as on a critical hit. Roll the damage dice and add all modifiers multiple times. Total the results. Extra damage dice over and above a weapon’s normal damage [...] are never multiplied.

The non-torturous reading of the rule is that when you attack with a Medium +3 flaming longsword in two hands and a +5 Strength bonus, your basic damage roll is 1d8+10. Then, you roll 1d6 fire damage thanks to flaming, and if you scored a critical hit, you make another basic damage roll or three (so a critical hit with that longsword used in that way adds 1d8+10 damage, which is conveniently ignored in more or less the same circumstances precision damage is).

Seems to be about additional dice in particular.