Craz's page

I really hope we get an FAQ on this. It really needs it if some folks are running it as the Champion's Reaction as working against persistent damage and some are not. I would also like to hear how PFS is running it.

No matter how many people think their RAW interpretation is the right one, it isn't clear at all. Triggering indicates to me immediate damage like a trigger being pulled, not a condition like persistent damage which ticks at the end of the target's round.

Nowhere does it indicate that a Champion's Reaction continues past reducing the immediate triggering damage. I don't know many people that interpret it that way behind the few I've seen on this thread.

In this case, the question best asked is whether Persistent Damage is considered connected to the initial attack or stand alone.

The two immediate ones in my head are:

"Is its damage considered attack damage? or just conditional damage?"
"If the source of persistent damage is magical in origin, is the persistent damage itself considered magical?"

For Claxon,

That general rule about resistance applying to persistent damage was meant to clarify that if you have fire resistance 5, and you took a critical hit from a flaming weapon rune your resistance applies to all the damage you will take from fire from that rune. Both the initial 1d6 damage, and the 1d10 persistent fire damage you will take later.

The way you phrased it might cause confusion. I think need to add that if you have fire resistance 5, you resist the initial hit, but if you still have the resistance 5 when you take the persistent, you also will get resistance to that damage roll.

Though the implication that the 1d10 comes from the rune itself can be of issue and part of the early confusion. This is implying that the persistent damage is coming from the rune itself. But this is also never really clarified. For example with acid damage, it comes from the acid staying on the skin. Bleed is not magical, it is the result of a sharp cut. Fire damage is because the rune did damage causing it to ignite.

This logic is supported because if you resisted the initial 1d6 fire damage, you would not earn the 1d10 fire damage. This is a constant for all persistent damage.

Because persistent damage can be pretty well spread and come from both magical and non magical sources, your example wouldn't really be a suitable mechanical explanation.

Reason I bring this up is that stuff like dispel and magic resistance comes into play. As discussed earlier in the day, persistence is classified as a condition, and as such wouldn't be subject to dispel, etc. Personally, I do not have spell resistance affect persistent damage because the ongoing damage is from a non magical source in my gm style.

That may be true. And that is why one must balance RAW with the RP for precisely that reason. From a pure mechanical standpoint, you would not be allowed to have that work in any form of magical means. The only stuff that has the devotion and divine power would be the stuff that says you are using a spell and then lists the spell.

So when in a dilemma like this, we need to go to page 7:

THE FIRST RULE:
The first rule of pathfinder is that the game is yours. Use it to tell the stories you want to tell, be the character you want to be, and share exciting adventures with your friends. If any other rule gets in the way of your fun, as long as your group agrees, you can alter or ignore it to fit your story. The true goal of Pathfinder is for everyone to enjoy themselves.

No game will ever be the same.

When I GM society play modules? I can take the same module that my friend ran in a prior session and it will play SIGNIFICANTLY different because of the finer nuanced aspect that are not written. While I would love to give an example of this that happened when we both ran the same module same time in store just before everything shut down, but that would unfortunately risk giving spoilers to people.

The important part is we could both understand eachother's position. I myself would find it offensive if I, as a player, was told I did some mundane thing like throw a rock with vigor instead of a burst of divine energy to help my ally break a grapple. The visuals of it do not matter after all, it is the imagination of the player.

But in this case, both examples can be valid. As GM, we are obligated to hear a player's grievance at the table if they feel it should work some way. But as a player it is absolutely paramount that if a GM says no, and gives a reasonable, even if debatable in minor aspects of a decision, that we respect that and discuss it after play to ensure an enjoyable session at the table.

Actually, that is one reason I have decided to spend my afternoon chatting about this with you here. I have seen game sessions ruined, and players not return because of another player vs gm arguing for an extended period of time on semantics like this.

Leading us to essentially what would be the end of discussion unless a paizo representative gives specific answer on the subject or an errata addressing it. We all have discussed exhaustively all relatable RAW in regards to the subject. The only parts of contention relate to how we interpret those written rules. If we condensed it down, it really comes down to one point with, while I consider the answer within the RAW, others might not.

"Is persistent damage considered damage from the enemy?"

Some no, some yes, but there is nothing in the book we can point at directly and say that is the answer without also having a "but or if"

This is actually a pretty good lead into hopefully coming to an agreeable decision.

One of the hardest traps a player/GM can fall into is being so focused on rule as written, that they will overlook rule as intended.

Hence referring to them as supernatural, and "magic"

This here is a prime example of it. If we focused solely and devotedly on following rules as written, this could never be considered because even supernatural abilities all have a magic school listed. I am flipping through the beastiary right now, and cannot find any supernatural ability without a school. Unfortunately, there is absolutely no part of the champion's descriptions that lets these reactions be considered magical.

But we do, because from a roleplay perspective, it makes sense. From a RAW perspective, it isnt allowed to be considered that way. So your way is really the best way to consider it.

If I was to give a similar comparison and need a roleplay justification, it could be similar to monk's abilities where sheer force of will can allow a person to exceed what normal people can do without magic.

I believe that lower statement though, we have a good point of conclusion should this issue come up in a game.

"It is within range of reasonable for roleplay" but then again, it also unfortunately isnt. That there is this discussion about the issue and people who disagree, it is also reasonable to accept that it does not affect persistent damage.

So we both have a visual of what happens. The enemy is about to strike, you should loudly the enemy "Hurt them and die!" and the sheer weight of your words causes a glimmer of what would befall them, just for a moment, causing their strike to falter.

So what has occured is a poor hit. The enemy rolled a crazy 6 damage, minus 3 for first level for three damage plus bleed!

But the same enemy type with same whatever ability strikes an ally 20 ft away... grazing your leg, hitting for only 2 damage plus bleed...

This is where as a roleplay, the logic would break down for me. Because of what the CR does, I would not be able to justifiably think of a reason that the more severe wound would bleed less. Sheer force of will? There is no actual magic being applied to the player.

Closest comparison would be say a barbarian's rage and temp hitpoints. But this has concentrate, Emotion, and mental conditions. It is not free and requires activity by the PC to continue. Top of head, I cannot think of any non magical passive buffs.

Edit: (Darn keep thinking of things after submitting post) By comparison, we need to look at the bard whose major roll in combat is to give non magical buffs/debuffs and other modifiers (I do love bards). Everything requires active input from the bard. There is no precedence for it I can think of.

Sorry, I edited to add the descriptions above of what occurs.

Retributive strike states protect, then attack. Glimpse of redemption says it functions by making the foe not hit as hard. Liberating step says it is a boost.

But we can look further into all three CRs.

We look at the traits. It only has the "champion" trait. It does not have the magical trait.

Champion (Trait): This indicates abilities from the champion class.

So if we go strict RAW, it in fact cannot be considered a magical effect because it does not have the "magical" or a spell class trait.

To go nearby in the PHB, we can look at the cleric. Almost all the cleric feats and abilities only say cleric. Example? Healing hands. But healing hands is not stand alone anymore, it is a modifier to the spell. This is all first level choices.

But if you look into the second level, you will see for example with communal healing "healing" "positive" or sap life "Healing" which designate their magical school.

As per page 297,

MAGICAL SCHOOLS
"All spells, all magic items, and most other magical effects fall into one of the eight schools of magic. These schools broadly define what the magic is capable of. Every spell has the trait corresponding to its school. Some spellcasters, like specialist wizards, have a particular acument with a certain school of magic."

So actually, in terms of RAW? The CR is a non magical ability despite it's having range because it does not have a magical school trait.

It isn't a matter of responsibility, it is a matter of control.

From a pure roleplay perspective, it isn't possible for the CR to affect persistent damage because the CR itself is a mind affecting ability to affect the enemy hitting the ally. They have no control over the persistent damage.

Edit: Breakdown of how each of the CRs function:

Retributive strike: "You protect an ally from a foe" Therefore the hit does not hit as hard, but still lights on fire. Partially blocking an attack does not mean they still arent on fire, they still were ignited, etc.

Glimpse of Redemption: Your foe hesitates under the weight of sin

Liberating step: You free an ally from restraint

In all three cases, the CR is acting on the action itself that causes the damage, not the damage.

It is divorced from it the moment the core rule book defined persistent damage as a condition. The steps regarding application of damage specify it as a condition as well.

SPECIFIC OVERRIDES GENERAL
"A core principle of Pathfinder is that Specific rules override general runs. If two rules conflict, the more specific one takes precendence. If there's still ambiguity, the GM determines which rule to use."

AMBIGUOUS RULES
"Sometimes a rule could be interpreted multiple ways. If one version is too good to be true, it probably is. If a rule seems to have wording with problematic repercussions or doesnt work as intended, work with your group to find a good solution, rather than just playing with the rule as printed"

In the case of bringing issue to a forum, the forum itself is your community. We, as a community have presented many situations that separate the CR from the persistent damage with direct usage of RAW.

At this time, I cannot present more because I am not a GM for purposes of this discussion. It is up to you, and your table to decide how you wish to use this information. Not everything can have a direct answer and will always be questions.

Any further discussion will just be circular for me, so to everybody else? I can only stand by my previous statements.

Considering the RAW, combined with the roleplay descriptor of what and how the CR's function, my only closing statement is that there is significantly more that would rule it does not apply than it does. That it does is based on non written interpretation, there is nothing written that states it would receive it.

No, that is not how persistent damage works. Because for example burning. It is because you are on fire. The enemy does not have control or direction on it at all. That is difference. The sword without the enemy holding, the spell without the caster, the breath weapon without the dragon does not exist if the wielder is not there.

Conditions however function and exist regardless of the enemy's actions. That is the defining difference.

However if that is the definition that the GM went with at a table I was playing? Every trap, anything which only exists because an enemy implemented it, I would be applying the reaction to.

Nope, not official, just over 25 years of TTRPG. Still got my yellow spine ADND books.

It ignores that possibility because that is using indirect relation. By indirect relation I can have it so that the enemy pulling a lever causing a room to fill with water, that the drowning damage is enemy damage because the enemy caused the room to fill with water.

It isn't contradition, but still must maintain a chain of process.

Because A<->B and B<->C, it does not mean that A<->C

Enemy caused condition which caused damage. Part of following rules as written is that things must be taken directly. Directly, the damage is a condition. All conditions are resolved independently. Beyond this, it is no longer RAW.

It is as you said "The possibility of condition damage being enemy damage" but this is not in the rules. This is a possibility. But RAW? An enemy applies a condition, a condition applies damage. This is the direct answer. Beyond that it is supposition and interpretation meaning not RAW.

So the debate isn't so much whether or not RAW says it IS applicable to persistent damage. There is nothing in the rules that says it is. Instead what is being asked for is if there is any rule that says it is not applied.

This is how our perspectives change. You will never have the rules be able to cover and account for everything. There will always be ways to connect dots. But if looking for a RAW answer? Then need to not connect dots and narrow it down to be as direct as possible. Outside of that, it is the GM's discretion as to how it applies.

That is why it is phrases as "an enemy damages an ally" So magic, breath weapons or GM discretion all give you option to trigger. Ditto for anything aura if it is the enemy applying it. But if say is an object, then it isn't the enemy applying the area of effect.

And yes, the "damaging an ally" is the moment damage starts. So enemy damages an ally means when the enemy is the source of the damage resolution.

However the enemy is not dealing the persistent damage. It is a condition. As such the persistent damage does not meet the trigger requirement. When persistent damage is done, it is the condition, not the enemy which causes said damage. The enemy only caused the condition.

The timing isn't a factor since it is specific to the damage caused by the enemy.

-----------

So the summary question and answer is:

"Is persistent damage enemy damage?"

No. Persistent damage is damage that occurs from have a condition. Because the CR only applies to damage from an enemy, it will not apply to the persistent damage because it is not damage from an enemy.

Which is utterly, completely irrelevant. Champions Reaction is not tied to attacks.

It is tied to when an enemy damages an ally, which is when you go to step 1 - and on page 451, inside the detailed breakdown of step 1, it tells you to delay taking any involved persistent damage until later.

Champions Reaction triggers after this, and should apply to all damage determined in steps 1 and 2 including the already dealt but pending being taken persistent damage.

Step 1 tells you NOT to take damage from persistent damage at this time as previously quoted. You do not take it immediately.

"Trigger: An enemy damages your ally"

An enemy can only damage an ally when it makes an attack. Persistent damage is not the enemy doing the damage. It is, and again, RAW "Persistent damage is a condition that causes damage" So taken straight literally, it is not the enemy.

I only say attack so I do not have to write out "when an enemy damages an ally" every time.

So by citing the damage resolution steps, the trigger is completed before persistent damage ever occurs.

Its listed under the first step of damage resolution on page 451. Its absolutely part of that process.

Can you please specify exactly what is said on 451?

The only discussion on 451 persistence was what I edit added to my earlier post where it explicitly says the damage does not occur immediately. Nowhere does it say that you roll and apply the persistent damage at the time of the attack. In fact it tells you NOT to do that.

What does it matter when its rolled or when you reduce your hit points? Its part of the initial resolution of damage - its being resolved at the same time as the champion reaction - and the champions reaction is still in effect when you do roll damage later.

What does it matter? That is what we are trying to explain. When it is rolled is entirely what matters because the damage being dealt is the trigger, and the damage done when the reaction is triggers is the only thing that you have a resistance to. So if the damage is not done then and not from the enemy directly, then you have no CR effect to give resistance.

The resolution is the application of the condition, NOT application of damage.

So yeah, the champions reaction is "in effect" in that it is still resisting the damage dealt when the attack was made. But persistent damage is not part of that because the condition is doing a damage. Not an attack. Persistent damage is explicit in that it is condition damage, not attack damage.

I cannot find anywhere that it says you roll persistent damage at the time it is applied.

"PERSISTENT DAMAGE"
Persistent damage comes from effects like acid, being on fire, or many other situations. It appears as "X persistent [type] damage," where "X" is the the amount of damage dealt and "[type]" is the damage type.Instead of taking persistent damage immediately, you take it at the end of each of your turns as long as you have the condition, rolling any damage dice anew each time. After you take persistent damage,roll a DC 15 flat check to see if you recover from the persistent damage. If you succeed, the condition ends.

RAW

"INSTEAD OF TAKING PERSISTENT DAMAGE IMMEDIATELY"

It does not happen when you receive the condition. Rolling persistent damage when the condition applied is incorrect. You do not take the damage immediately, only on the end of your turn. Therefore you will never have persistent damage at the time of trigger.

Edit: Above was also from 621. However in rules about damage, it also has a section, page 451:

"PERSISTENT DAMAGE"
Persistent damage is a condition that causes damage to recur beyond the original effect. Unlike with normal damage, when you are subject to persistent damage, you don't take it right away. Instead, you take the specified damage at the end of your turns, after which you attempt a DC 15 flat check to see if oyu recover from the persistent damage. See conditions Appendix on pages 618-6234 for the complete rules regarding the persistent damage condition.

So now not just once, but twice it says that persistent damage does not occur at the time of the attack.

Unfortunately, I am not sure what else to say on the subject. It is defined that persistent damage is a condition, not an attack. It is defined that the CR only applies to enemy attack damage. So already we have persistent damage is not a trigger in the CR. It is specific that the resistance only applies to that damage that triggered the reaction. It is clear that there is no damage from persistent damage when the enemy makes the attack as it only occurs on your turn.

Beyond this, I have no idea how they could make it clearer outside of writing it out directly that it doesnt apply. There is no rule stating that it would apply to it either. The closest is saying that persistent damage is also subject to resistances, but that is only relevant if it is deemed that there is a resistance in the first place, but the rules are pretty clear that the CR would not apply to the persistent damage in that it specifically states that it isn't a resistance the player gets, it is only a resistance that is applied to the damage itself.

I thought it is pretty clear. "Triggering Damage" the trigger is "An enemy damages your ally" Therefore the triggering damage is the damage done to the ally. It isn't when an enemy attacks. It is when they deal damage. Meaning damage dice are rolled. So the resistance applies to those rolls because those rolls are the trigger.

And persistent damage is not an enemy doing damage. It is a condition the enemy applied, but is not the enemy doing it.

That is the part that is making me get confused with this discussion. The RAW is explicit that the damage from persistent is as a result of a condition directly.

The trigger occurs at the moment the attack is applied. Therefore you cannot move out of the 15 range.

Edit: Markus Reese above is me. I forgot to set Craz to default. My bad.

Of note: Despite all this discussion, there is one aspect of 621 that does apply. Specifically if all damage from an attack that is related to the persistent damage, then the persistent damage condition does not trigger.

So if the d6 of fire damage is 2 from the attack, well the resistance nullifies all the fire damage. As such no persistent fire damage condition is applied.

What did come up regularly is the fact that Champion Reactions apply to every single different type of damage independently, via Resist All damage, explicitly.

It does not say, "Except for Persistent damage", and it does not list a duration

It doesnt say all damage.

It says "all damage to TRIGGER DAMAGE" You are only applying part of the rule out of context.

So correct, it doesnt have a duration. Technically it never ends. But the damage it applies to only occurs once. The persistent is not part of the conditional damage to which the resistance applies to.

I suggest you read through the thread as we have been through all of this.

CR gives resistance to “all damage” which is specific to p453. Resistance applies to persistent damage as per p621. That is RAW.

These rules are very clearly stated. CR is an instantaneous effect, therefore it is permanent and does not have a time limit. When you start arguing that damage is not damage, or all damage doesn’t include some damage, then you are in RAI territory.

That is not RAW

"CR gives resistance to 'all damage'"

At this point, the rules are already incorrect if this is how it is being applied.

It is not:

Resistance 2+L/-

It is

Resistance 2+L/- VS. TRIGGER

That is the first and most essential distinction that matters. That is RAW states what damage the resistance is applied to. 453 only explains what happens when a specific attack deals multiple damage types.

621 only is about how to apply it if a player is taking both physical and persistent from an attack because most persistent is a condition of an attack. It does not in any way say if you are hit by an attack you will gain resistance to the persistent. It only says that if you have a resistance when the persistent damage is received, you also resist that.

So both pages are not relevant vs CR because the persistent damage is not part of the attack. The attack is as below:

[Damage physical] + [Damage Energy] + Condition

Gameplay: Enemy hits, does above damage. Trigger conditions are met because an enemy [Damage Physical] + [Damage Energy] This is RAW. Trigger is "An Enemy deals attack damage" Damage is specified in rules. What an attack is, is also specified. Damage applied from a condition is not attack damage. An ability that gives condition IS an attack, but there is no damage from the attack itself.

It only applies a condition.

TRIGGER AS DEFINED:
[physical damage]+[energy damage] from the enemy ability used.

ABILITY:
Resistance to all VS trigger damage. Trigger damage is above.

And it ends right at this point. The conditions of the ability have been met. The other stuff being referenced is reverse application of rules. Those are "IF" situations when applicable. But they are not applicable. Using 621 you are bypassing RAW, not following because you are using a rule to try and negate a rule.

621 DOES NOT say if you take a resistance to an attacks damage you automatically gain resistance to the persistent damage. It ONLY says that if you have a resistance, you can apply it to both damages separately.

But you do not have a resistance when you take the persistent.

Block 621 only states that if you have a resistance and something has both an instant and persistent damage, it applies to both separately.

That is completely separate and irrelevant from the champion's ability. What matters with the ability is it specifies specifically it only applies to the "trigger's damage". The trigger's damage being the damage that occurs on weapon contact.

The persistent is not trigger damage because you cannot trigger the reaction with PD nor does it occur at the time of trigger. So by the time a player takes the persistent damage, there is no more resistance to be had because the resistance is solely the enemy not hitting as hard. From the description itself. It is not a barrier or anything. It is a mind affecting influence on the foe. It is an instantaneous, not persistent effect.

Course can I make sure I understand what you mean when you say CR? I am assuming we are talking about champion reaction still?

Edit: Play situation breakdown.

Enemy deals attack, does damage of 1d6P and 1d6F Player gets condition of 1d6 f, BUT!!! and this is where it is critical! Has not received damage from it!

As such, the champion can trigger reaction because an ally has received 1d6P and 1d6F since that is what triggered being able to use the reaction.

Foe uses the resistance one and is staggered. The ability is no longer relevant because it has been applied to trigger damage rules as written.

621 has no relevance here because the resistance is over before there is any persistent damage applied and the persistent damage is not the as worded trigger damage.

Hi there,

I am coming a bit late to this discussion and not too frequent of forum poster, mostly lurker, but I would like to give my feedback, apologies if I misunderstand the context.

So there were two bits to this discussion in relation to glimpse of redemption?

First bit was does persistent damage allow you to trigger it. It seems that this was answered, but it is relevant to the part it looks like is being discussed here at the end of it, so want to make sure it is clear.

"Trigger: An enemy damages your ally, and both are within 15 ft of you"

So this requires a couple definitions already said and as such a repeat. Attack and Persistent damage are both defined separately in the rules with persistent damage being damage from a condition, not from the attack itself. So no, there is no justification for it.

This is important for it because it applies to what I believe the discussion is, unless I am wrong, the debate as to whether the resistance would apply to persistent damage.

No.

The resistance is very specific. It is it is applied to "the triggering damage". So if it is already concluded that persistent damage cannot trigger, then it is not trigger damage because it is not attack damage.

The sidebar on 621 does not say that the persistent is part of the attack. What it says is that an effect that applies both immediate and persistent. The attack does deal damage, and apply a condition. But it only applies the effect, it does not deal the effect damage itself.

To help make it more visual, we can use word substitution. Replace the "triggering damage" with the definition of the trigger itself:

"The ally gains resistance to all damage against <the enemy damage to your ally> equal to 2+ your level."

At this point, the effect has run it's course and ends. The next damage is condition damage, not the <enemy damage to your ally>.

---
Not enough justification?
---

Lets look at the roleplay reasoning. The glimpse of redemption roleplay explaination is as follows:
"Your foe hesitates under the weight of sin as visions of redemption play in their mind's eye. The FOE must choose one of the following options:"

So consider that. If you regret lighting something on fire, but still lit it on fire.... would it burn slower just cause you regretted it? The poison be weaker? I mean you could sorta roleplay a bleeding cut wouldn't be so bad but...

---
BUT!
---

Keep in mind the DM has discretion as to players remedying persistent damage as well as the rules read that if the triggering effect does no damage, then there will not be any persistent damage. So say you have a sword that does fire damage with persistence, if the redemption causes the fire damage to be negated then there will not be the persistent fire damage.

Well, again, 100 posts and some chat with peeps outside of game and this is how I would rule if I was GMing. For me it seems pretty direct with the confusion stemming from a general clarification being used to override specific wording.

Course could have misunderstood the whole discussion too?