Ranged combat damage is combat damage with the ranged trait. Its on the Scout and the Arrow Catching Studded Leather armor card.
I don't think we've seen any other traits besides ranged, but I could be wrong. If I'm not wrong than in all other cases it is 1 type.
The thread you link to is largely about Gogmurt. His damage is not combat damage, even when you fail the check against him. His card basically says replace combat damage with fire damage instead when taking damage. So cards that only reduce combat damage are useless against him.
From not more than hour before you posted:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qfu2?Another-Noob-Question-Wooden-Shield-vs-Be fore#31
Yes, but it is still only Combat Damage as far as the type goes, correct? The question is can damage have more than one type, for purposes of what can be used to reduce it?
Hypothetically, if a card said "fire combat damage" than you could play a card that reduced fire damage or a card that reduced combat damage or a card that said all damage or just plain old damage with no type.
That being said, ranged combat damage is not only combat damage. It is ranged combat damage. So cards that reduced ranged damage (a term I don't think is used on any card published so far) and cards that reduced combat damage and cards that reduced ranged combat damage would all work against it. So the Arrow Catching Studded Leather armor can reduce the ranged combat damage better than it can reduce combat damage.
Gogmurt's card says "All damage dealt by Gogumurt is fire damage." It does not say "All damage dealt by Gogmurt has the fire trait." And it doesn't say "All damage dealt by Gogmurt is fire combat damage." It just fire damage, not combat damage.
Take Damage, If Necessary. If you fail a check to defeat a monster, it deals an amount of damage to you equal to the difference between the difficulty to defeat the monster and your check result. Unless the card specifies otherwise, this damage is Combat damage.
Gogmurt's card specifies otherwise. And when saying specifies otherwise it doesn't mean "in addition to."
If you were told at your job to stack all the TPS Reports on my desk unless I specify otherwise, and I one day said, "For Gogmurt's TPS reports put them on Jim's desk." Would you think I meant to put a copy on my desk and Jim's desk? Or would you think I meant to put it on either desk that you wanted? No, you'd think that I specified otherwise and I replaced the regular situation with another entirely, telling you to ignore the normal rules and do this other thing instead.
(And I don't say "you" in my example in any hostile accusatory tone, its just the easiest way to illustrate the point.)
The rulebook says "unless specified otherwise." My reason isn't based on Gogmurt's card. Its based on the rulebook. This sentence:
"Unless the card specified otherwise, this damage is Combat damage."
It means that when a card specifies otherwise the phrase "this damage is Combat damage" does not apply.
Gogmurt's card clearly specified otherwise. Therefore there is now no section in the rulebook where you could argue you are to take combat damage by failing the check to defeat Gogmurt because that sentence is nullified. With the absence of any instruction to take combat damage when specified otherwise, Gogmurt is only dealing out pure, unadulterated fire damage.
For your argument to work the rulebook would need to say:
"Unless the card specified otherwise, this damage is only Combat damage."
But even that that construction would be problematic because "specifying otherwise" is equivalent to "instead of" not "in addition to". So even if that were the rules, Gogmurt's card would still have to say something about fire in addition to combat damage for the "only" version of the rule to work.
Ok. Last attempt here to get my point across.
Is Gogmurt's card a case of a card specifying otherwise about which kind of damage to take? If yes, then its a case of applying this this rule.
And this rule, by having "unless specified otherwise" as a subordinate clause to the main clause "this damage is combat damage" means that "this damage is combat damage" is conditioned upon a card not specifying otherwise. The word "unless" implies that when the subordinate clause's condition is met, the main clause is not applicable/possible.
Short of that, I don't think you'll be convinced unless a higher power intervenes. (Meaning Mike or Vic or Chad or some other recognized authority.)
But, I do want to say, I hope you enjoy playing this game as much as I do. Don't let anyone spoil your enjoyment of it, including me. Its too much fun to let that happen.
Happy adventuring, and hopefully you will just defeat Gogmurt and this will not be an issue.
Look: you're saying over and over that Gogmurt's card "clearly" says otherwise. It clearly does NOT say otherwise. That's why both of us have to go to the rules to make INFERENCES about what it means.
http://i.imgur.com/a1kqTWY.png
"Take damage, if necessary. If you fail a check to defeat a monster, it deals an amount of damage to you equal to the difference between the difficulty to defeat the monster and your check result. Unless the card specifies otherwise, this damage is Combat damage"
http://i.imgur.com/a2Yjdgf.jpg
"All damage from Gogmurt is fire damage."
This tells me very strongly that Gogmurt does not deal combat damage, only fire damage. Cards do what they say and don't do what they don't say.
We both agree on where the disconnect is: is the card a case of "saying otherwise"?
Absolutely.
That being said, ranged combat damage is not only combat damage. It is ranged combat damage. So cards that reduced ranged damage (a term I don't think is used on any card published so far) and cards that reduced combat damage and cards that reduced ranged combat damage would all work against it. So the Arrow Catching Studded Leather armor can reduce the ranged combat damage better than it can reduce combat damage.
"Ranged Combat damage" is a useful term, and it means exactly what it says. We use it a bunch in Runelords and in Skull & Shackles. That said, it may create confusion, because it suggests that damage types can stack, when in general they do not. It may be worth clarifying in the future.
"Ranged Combat damage" is a useful term, and it means exactly what it says. We use it a bunch in Runelords and in Skull & Shackles. That said, it may create confusion, because it suggests that damage types can stack, when in general they do not. It may be worth clarifying in the future.
So are you saying "Ranged Combat damage" is it's own damage category distinct from "Combat damage" or not?
Assume I encounter a bane which says "Before the encounter take 1 Ranged Combat damage". In my hand I have two armors:
Armor #1 : Recharge this card to reduce combat damage by 1.
Armor #2 : Recharge this card to reduce ranged combat damage by 1.
Which is the correct ruling:
A. I can play either Armor #1 or Armor #2 to reduce the damage.
B. I can play only Armor #2 to reduce the damage.
It is A. Ranged combat damage is a "sub-type" of combat damage is probably the best way to say it to avoid confusion. So far "ranged" is the only term that we've seen added to to the types of damage we've seen. Going off my memory.
Damage Types So Far
- Combat
- Fire
- Cold
- Mental
- Poison
- Force
- Acid
Ranged combat damage would just be combat damage done from at a distance. The only time we've seen it matter so far is in the Arrow Catching Studded Leather armor. And in that one case the fact that you are being dealt "ranged combat damage" is only helpful because that armor reduces more of that.
But going back to your question, ranged combat damage is still combat damage, so you can reduce ranged combat damage with cards that reduce combat damage.
Henchman in AP3 does Electric damage pre-encounter.
How about keeping damage as just one type regardless which would in my mind simplify the overall situation and then when you want to do something different like in the case of something reacting to a ranged weapon - don't treat ranged damage as a "type" at all, just have the card say something like "if the ranged trait is used as part of this check" then X happens.
If you do it like that then you can still be very clear that damage always has one type, so when Gogmurt changes his damage to fire there would be no confusion as to whether it could be more than one type and would save you from needlessly having to overcomplicate defining damage in the game.
Several of these more recent discussions kind of come down to the same thing for me - there's a specific rule in the rulebook defining damage being one type, or evading ignoring everything on a card, etc.. The rule is usually pretty clear - but when it gets tricky is when that rule starts to not apply anymore, as with the ranged damage counting as kind of more than one type or evaded cards actually being looked at for some things but not others. And that causes people to then question other cards that they probably otherwise would figure out how to play correctly with no problem, like Gogmurt, for example. Not sure exactly the best way to deal with those kinds of issues but just pointing out from my end what is behind most of the confusion.
Gogmurt is the only (currently known) case where the type of the damage is changed during the combat check itself. That's kind of why I wanted to know the official take on it: not so much for Gogmurt himself but for future banes that I'm sure we'll see in 4, 5, and 6 that do the same. :)Uhhhh... what about Pillbug, Sirens, Satyrs, etc?
You are correct about Pillbug (Poison). There is also Caizarlu Zerren (Poison), and Barl Breakbones (Fire). And of course Gogmurt (Fire) was mentioned. I think that is about it.
jsciv was referencing situations where the check is a combat check but the damage you take isn't combat damage, so I wouldn't include the Sirens or Satyr in there since they aren't combat checks to defeat.
That is true, and important to note. It is possible to have a non-combat check to defeat a monster and if nothing was specified you would take combat damage for failing to defeat it. This is common in the villains.
In fact, I would think that situation would be more easy to get confused than the situation where it was a combat check but not combat damage.
So to summarize my understanding so far:
-Every type of damage received by a player will fall into exactly one of the following major categories: Combat, Fire, Cold, Mental, Poison, Force, Acid (there may be others, but this is what we've seen so far)
-All damage is considered to be Combat damage, unless otherwise explicitly stated on the source card
-"Ranged combat damage" is a special sub-category (or minor category, if you like) of Combat damage.
-Any card/power that reduces "Combat damage" can be used to reduce "Ranged combat damage."
-Any card/power that reduces "Ranged combat damage" cannot be used to reduce generic "Combat damage"
Dave Riley pointed out Dorella and Hookmaw Kreeg do 1d4 Electricity damage "Before the encounter". So add electricity to your list and I would say your understanding is the same as mine.
First encounter with them was through Merisiel who was like "pfft, acrobatics 10, no problem."
Next encounter was with Seoni and Lem, both at the location, neither with armor or significant damage-reduction in hand. First time pre-encounter damage has caused more than a a slight inconvenience or a buried armor.
Jsciv, I guess I'm just not sure where your fundamental issue with "saying otherwise" is. If I said "I'll give you oranges every day unless I say otherwise." and then said "Today all the fruit I'm giving you are apples." You probably wouldn't say "ah ah ah, but are SOME of the apples also part orange?" Would you say it even if a hybrid apple-orange fruit existed? I didn't say I was giving you hybrid apple-orange fruit.
I understand that Ranged Combat damage causes some small disconnect, but it does say Ranged COMBAT damage, whereas Gogmurt's card doesn't say Fire Combat damage, and Pillbug's doesn't say Poison Combat damage.
Also Mike already gave you word of god a few posts up, though I understand how you could've missed it, since it was literally "word" of god (just one).
We both agree on where the disconnect is: is the card a case of "saying otherwise"?Absolutely.
So Ranged Combat damage is Combat damage (according to the FAQ) and you can play cards that reduce Combat damage when you are dealt Ranged Combat damage.
But since it is Ranged Combat damage, is it really Combat damage for purposes of determining damage type ?
My Sajan is a Zen Archer with the When dealt damage other than Combat damage, reduce that damage by 1. Every time I read the FAQ entry linked above, I conclude that the damage reduction doesn't apply to Ranged Combat damage. Every time I read the power, I am in doubt: Ranged Combat damage is not Combat damage since it is Ranged Combat damage. The fact that the Pathfinder RPG Zen Archer can Deflect Arrows further reinforces my perception that I should be able to reduce Ranged Combat damage.
Has this been clarified?
Reading the faq, I would say his power doesn't apply to ranged combat damage. I'd say that because he is being dealt combat damage, so it isn't something other than combat damage, it is sort of something in addition to combat damage.
But I think your question is a good one, and is the kind of thing an authoritative confirmation on would be good.
|
I agree that Sajan cannot reduce that damage. It has Combat right in the name, it's Combat damage, I don't think that is very debatable. If we see Fire combat damage, cold combat damage, poison combat damage, etc., it is still Combat damage.
One important thing is not to compare facts about the RPG to the ACG. As Mike as stated before, that is exactly why character powers don't get names, because then people start looking at the RPG and saying "Well that works this way here, so why does it work differently there?"
