KlampK's page

KlampK wrote:

A follow up question on resistance if you have say resistance 5 fire, and take 2 fire damage from both a spell and rune, are we suppose to combine them or just resist 2 of it? The wording of weakness seems to imply that damage is not pooled, but i would like further clarification

No all damage in a single effect is absolutely pooled by type before any modifications are made through IWR. Especially with how they define a single effect and explicitly say that a resistance can only apply once to a single type of damage, and any single type of damage can only be modified by a single resistance.

Quote:

A single effect can activate more than one weakness at a time, but adds each of the subject’s weaknesses only once. For example, if you made a Strike with a flaming cold iron battle axe benefiting from a spell that gives it additional fire damage, and you targeted a creature with weakness to cold iron, fire, and slashing, the Strike would benefit from all three weaknesses but wouldn’t apply the fire weakness twice.

Quote:

A single effect can activate more than one resistance at a time, but subtracts each of the subject’s resistances only once. If the subject has more than one resistance to the same damage type, they apply only one, usually the highest. For a resistance to a category including multiple damage types, like resistance to physical damage, to spells, or to all damage, if the subject is taking damage of multiple types included in the category, the subject can choose which damage type to use the resistance against.

Quote:

To add an extra clarification here, a “single effect” includes all the damage, traits, and other characteristics of a Strike or spell. Subordinate actions with their own effects and damage rolls typically get treated separately

But,this part seems to say that damage isn't pooled but IWR instead a true/false

A single effect can activate more than one weakness at a time, but adds each of the subject’s weaknesses only once. For example, if you made a Strike with a flaming cold iron battle axe benefiting from a spell that gives it additional fire damage, and you targeted a creature with weakness to cold iron, fire, and slashing, the Strike would benefit from all three weaknesses but wouldn’t apply the fire weakness twice.

They also only mention pooling damage only in reference to precision damage in which it doesn't get added to a separate pool, but that is less reliable because it is pre-errata.

A follow up question on resistance if you have say resistance 5 fire, and take 2 fire damage from both a spell and rune, are we suppose to combine them or just resist 2 of it? The wording of weakness seems to imply that damage is not pooled, but i would like further clarification

KlampK wrote:

An adventure on the Elemental Planes. Specifically either Air or Water.

I would definitely love more elemental planes content in general. However, would you want this adventure to differ from their other APs? I'm looking for ideas that don't fit the mold of their existing product types.

For example: A book dedicated to Hexploring the Plane of Air with randomization elements and no set overarching story.

I would be looking for expanded rules on 3d combat, expanded vehicle combat and general rules, and weather systems/events.

Quote:

A creature immune to precision damage would ignore the 1d6 precision damage in the example above, but it would still take the rest of the piercing damage from the Strike. Since precision damage is always the same type of damage as the attack it's augmenting, a creature that is resistant to physical damage, like a gargoyle, would resist not only the dagger's damage but also the precision damage, even though it is not specifically resistant to precision damage.

Good catch on them not updating the precision damage wording, it is still using the separate instance language.

An adventure on the Elemental Planes. Specifically either Air or Water.

In this case with the moonbeam, even if we combine the damage from moonbeam and another effect before resistances you still combine all of the fire.

At best its a return to the discussion of double slice with a silver sword and a regular sword that deals the same damage type but I believe that still counts as all of the slashing counting as being from a silver weapon from old posts since you can no longer indepedently resist the two weapons.

Thats the thing, i would like the rule written so i can say whether i am deviating from it, rather than have arguments about what this means that varies between tables.

gesalt wrote:

Tridus wrote:

KlampK wrote:

S'pose that i have resistance to fire 5 and I take a strike that does 2 fire and 2 silver-fire damage. do i resist all of that or just 2?

What is doing " silver fire" damage and how is that separate from the "fire" damage on it? Stuff doesn't do "silver damage" typically: silver is a trait on the attack.

Moonbeam is the silver-fire damage you are looking for.

Moonbeam is doing fire damage that is also silver, not separate instances of "fire" and "silver fire" damage. So no, it's not the example that was being talked about, which was this:

Quote:

S'pose that i have resistance to fire 5 and I take a strike that does 2 fire and 2 silver-fire damage. do i resist all of that or just 2?

My original thought had been a magus with moonbeam, BUT, the how was not the important part. I can eaaily see a moon themed adventure being created with a rune that mimicked Moonbeam or a third party creating an item.

The how was covered in the "S'pose". It asked you to assume we found ourselves in the situation presented.

KlampK wrote:

S'pose that i have resistance to fire 5 and I take a strike that does 2 fire and 2 silver-fire damage. do i resist all of that or just 2?

What is doing " silver fire" damage and how is that separate from the "fire" damage on it? Stuff doesn't do "silver damage" typically: silver is a trait on the attack.

Slight correction, silver is a material not a trait. This caused it act as a co-type, at least for weakness. And now if weak to both fire and silver both would trigger on silver-fire damage. The "MoonXX" spells are where i am drawing inspiration from. It is less clear if it should be a co-type or a separate damage altogether now. which is why i asked the question?

If you had "Weakness: silver 5" and "Resistance: fire 5", it becomes a little unclear. When you add damage due to your weakness, the damage is the type of that weakness.

Following up on this, say my silver-fire example had a persistent fire rider effect on the silver-fire portion, if we applied the weakness we would have damage of 5 silver, 2 silver-fire, and 2 fire. We resist the fire portions so we are down to 5 silver damage, but as 5 silver damage came from the effect that had persistent fire does the persistent fire get applied? (I think it shouldn't, unless it was listed as persistent silver-fire)

S'pose that i have resistance to fire 5 and I take a strike that does 2 fire and 2 silver-fire damage. do i resist all of that or just 2?

WatersLethe wrote:

I just have a sneaky suspicion that the change isn't that big a deal and will turn out to be a net benefit the vast majority of the time.

Overall? It's an adjustment but it'll be fine. Champions still work when enemies are only doing one type of damage (that is the most common case, after all) so while it's a nerf, it's not a crippling one.

We now have a situation where resists and weaknesses never double-dip, which makes sense.

I do agree that the change will be fine. Whether or not it was for the better we won't know for a while.

I just dislike this more than the retracted because I felt the retracted explained some of the odd things put into the rules. Where this more one doesn't.

Nezuyo wrote:

HolyFlamingo! wrote:

Regardless of who's in charge, though, changes to fundamental mechanics should probably wait for the next edition, imho.

While I actually like this interpretation of IWR rules for being nicely consistent, in that Weaknesses/Resistances only apply once, no exceptions, on principle, I do somewhat agree.

#BringBackSpellSchools

That "tantrum" was because the new ruling fundamentally broke the game and clashed with how nearly everybody had interpreted the limited rules/rulings we had to work with. The feedback given after that ruling dropped could be boiled down to, "WTF, why didn't they just have it work like it always did on Foundry, but properly spelt out?"

I don't think the retracted clarification did fundamentally break the game. I do not deny that there may have been some abilities/spells designed under the "community" rule that could break the game.

This usually happens only when a monster is weak to both a type of physical damage and a given material.

The above, for instance, doesn't make any sense when (unless i missed something) in the original bestiary only a single linworm is weak to both a material and a physical damage but there are plenty of creatures weak to an energy and physical damage

There's no way that the design team didn't know that most of us were using the Foundry implementation; the best and easiest thing to do was to codify that. If they felt that might be unbalanced or otherwise less than ideal, they could print a sidebar that gives an optional rule for resist all as it currently works.

It may have been easiest but we do not know if it was best. The community threw such a tantrum at the first clarification that we don't know how that would have turned out.

I suspect the "Best" thing would have been halfway between the first clarification and how foundry was doing it.

KlampK wrote:

HolyFlamingo! wrote:

Literally the only two things missing are Arcadian and Darklands sourcebooks,

Right now Arcadia doesn't seem to have much lore and it is far enough away that you can toss whatever you need to add over there without messing with other sources while close enough to still be relevant.

We know about several nations and the meta-regions they fit into. Don't sell Arcadia short! The idea that it's a blank slate you can throw anything you want into ignores a lot of my favorite material in Pathfinder.

I didn't mean to sell it short. I would love to know where to go to get info on it though

Literally the only two things missing are Arcadian and Darklands sourcebooks,

I'm definitely up for a Darklands source book, but would rather a Casmaron book over Arcadia. Right now Arcadia doesn't seem to have much lore and it is far enough away that you can toss whatever you need to add over there without messing with other sources while close enough to still be relevant.

I feel the change to Resist all (now to be known as Resist any) makes for more tactical thinking which is exactly PF2's DNA.

So, quite good IMO.

I'm not sure its good because it becomes optimize the damage reduction.

What an instance of damage is, and exactly how hardness, weakness, and resistance work in a system featuring such, should have been hammered out during early combat testing. This isn't some edge case; it's fundamental to how dealing damage works.

I think it was, at least internally, and everyone knew what it was so noone wrote it down. Then people either forgot, or were brought in and didn't "know" so worked off their own definition.

Then they wrote down what it was but there were things that were broken under that definition, causing everyone to freak out and here we are.

You asked for a clarification in another topic, but I really don't think any is needed. If a thing doesn't do damage, it doesn't do damage.

I agree, but the confusion in this thread brings up the point it might need an official clarification

For clarity and consistency can the 1 acid damage that all acid flasks do be added to the individual stat blocks

Clarification on what happens when a strike has no base damage but extra damage needs to be added. Such as throwing a glue bomb with a rangers precision edge or united assault?

I'm not missing 1 damage, the only 1 damage at Acid Flask is Splash damage.

https://2e.aonprd.com/Equipment.aspx?ID=3286

You made up a new rule that a kind of bomb somehow would lost the effect of the bonuses without explicitly say so or it will add non existent damage.

Either way wouldn't it be better if the dev's actually addressed it and gave us multiple examples?
Acid Flask with bonus damage like my example, double slice flaming rune, dagger gouging claw critical spellstrike, bleeding finisher with wounding rune.

You did, it is listed before going into the different grades of acid flask . Took me like an hour of contemplating and rereading the acid flask before I noticed it.

This flask filled with corrosive acid deals 1 acid damage, the listed persistent acid damage, and the listed acid splash damage. Many types grant an item bonus to attack rolls.

For example, acid flask ( moderate ) only does persistent damage, if a ranger with gravity weapon (+4 status), united assault (+4 circumstance) and precision edge (+1d8 precision ) attack with it.

How much persistent damage it does?

This was a tough answer not because of the persistent, but I was trying to figure what type of damage it actually does.

You missed the 1 base acid. so everything applied to that and then 2d6 persistent.

That said if a bomb only did pesistent damage i think there would be three options a) the bomb gets no bonuses, b) the bomb is misprinted and should have base 1 damage of the appropriate type, or c) the bonus damage inherits the type from the persistent and the weapon has a or 1 damage dice.

I would favor b

I don't agree agree with your interpretation of the immunity rule Trip.

Immunity doesn't care about instances, only if the effect has the trait or damage type. If the effect is complex break it down to the corresponding components for immunity then apply W/R.

As Easl said Paizo appears to have decided technical writing is not warranted in their technical document and that was a choice...

Loreguard wrote:

Whatever they decide on, my suggestion is that they work very carefully on. In fact, my suggestion would be to present a 'draft' of an errata for players to playtest and provide feedback.

That would be cool...but what do we want? Whats the draft? And why wait passively for Paizo to do all the work?

I'm more inclined for a rule closer to the retracted or to do nothing. The 'draft' would be, for lack of a better term, a Resistance/Weakness rule playtest. unless i misunderstood your question.

As to your first numbered question. How does this work if instead of Ignition you used Moonbeam. Is that a fire instance and a silver-fire instance?

You are right Unicore.

I think, of the options we have been presented, do nothing, the retracted clarification and the proposed change, that the proposed change is the worst option and most confusing.

It leaves ambiguous whether something like twin feint is one source or two. there example with spell strike makes it seam like it is one. if it is one that negates the bonus to combining damage to bypass resistance. also does this apply to hardness as well?

It fails to address when one type of damage has multiple sub types. Spellstriking with a weapon with coldiron-piercing and needle darts silver-piercing. does that trigger two piercing resistances or one?

of the options of do nothing and the retracted, do nothing probably would be the better option but, the retracted sounds more interesting.

I think clarifying what whether "and" or "plus" means a new instance and which means combining would be best. And therefore also clarifying what spells/runes are "and" damage and what are "plus" damage.

Again, yall, the whole point of this exercise is to show that this merging of instances by type thing was ALWAYS completely whack and in violation of the rules.

When following a proposed 'RaW' gets to a ruling that's the complete opposite of the RaI for persistent damage, you should be looking for an error, not inventing new phantom rules to cover it up.

Absolutely, 100%. Also, i think you might be right on the Persistent Damage some of the time. so sorry about saying you were 100% wrong, i was kinda mistaken, (See below). my bad.

And I still claim the error is the instances of damage, and that the pf2 rules text is written with the understanding that one impact is one instance. Written so that adding additional ___ damage into an existing attack just adds damage to that instance, and does not spawn a new one.

I think both sides are right and wrong, Paizo's clarification was partially right but didn't explain why and they may have to go in and errata many spells/runes/abelites.

It all comes down to "plus" vs "and". One of those is saying separate this into two instances and the other says this is one instance, and they never told us which is which. I think plus/additional means it is a separate instance and "and" means one instance, but would really like clarification.

It all starts with the Agradameon. I had written up a whole spiel about how plus was used for conditions and "and" damage, cause you know generally that works on the condition side.

But then when checking before i posted i came across this guy. And if you look at its melee strike it does 2d12+14 slashing plus 2d6 fire and 2d6 evil damage. Which is odd, cause that uses both. Maybe its just a legacy thing, surely there is no monster using remaster rules that does that.

Turns out there is. The Firewyrm. Both is melee and breath weapon do persistent fire damage, one uses "plus" the other "and".

And another the Flaming Skull melee attack Bludgeoning plus fire (NOT persistent). Icewrym breath cold and piercing.

And here is the kicker Magma Scorpion
its pincer:2d6+9 bludgeoning plus 1d6 persistent fire and Grab
its tail sting: 1d10+9 piercing plus 1d6 persistent fire and magma scorpion venom

If i am resist all the fire does that mean it dosen't get grab, or did i get it backwards and "and" is a separate instance and "plus" means to combine?

Edit: I think and is the separate instances from this line in immunities "a spell that deals both fire and acid damage can still deal acid damage to you even if you're immune to fire."

The attack (or any effect) itself carries and applies the persistent damage in that moment.

Yes, but persistent damage is a condition, per the persistent damage rule sentences four and six. Immunity and resistances may apply here per the sidebar "Usually, if an effect negates the initial damage, it also negates the persistent damage."

The fact that the HP minus is delayed, is completely irrelevant. We are talking about the creation of that Condition effect, and what value it carries.

Okay we are good here.

When you perform an attack that contains persistent damage, that is when you run through the text and rules on persistent damage.

Sure we can run through that. The relevant rules, Persistent damage appears as “X persistent [type] damage,” where “X” is the amount of damage dealt and “[type]” is the damage type. Like normal damage, it can be doubled or halved based on the results of an attack roll or saving throw.

We will using 1d4 persistent fire damage as an example.
T
he target gains the condition "1d4 persistent fire damage". But wait you say what if they were crit hit? Then it is "[Crit 1d4] persistent fire damage" where [Crit 1d4] is your preferred method of double dmg or double dice.

But what if they are Immune to fire? They would not gain the condition. Though there are some edge cases where it could be argued that it would be applied but have no effect when damage is applied at the end of their turn.

But what if they are Resistant to fire? This is answer in cases.
Case 1) The effect is only applying "1d4 persistent fire damage": Technically, then the persistent fire condition is applied. But, if the resistance is higher than the max damage, and there is no way to apply a weakness, for housekeeping reasons i see no reason to apply it.
Case 2) The effect is doing "Y fire damage" + "1d4 persistent fire damage": per the side bar, if the creature has enough resistance to negate the "Y fire damage" then the "1d4 persistent fire damage" is not applied, else apply the "1d4 persistent fire damage".

Weakness has no effect on the persistent at this point because, the persistent damage has not actually dealt damage yet, we are only generating the condition. Also the condition does not have traits.

That is when you generate and apply the Condition to the target.

Did and done, as referenced above

It's also when you might *not* apply it with the attack if the target is already bleeding from a matching or greater effect. Because you obey the text's rules.

Yep, you got me there. i screwed up reading the rules. I think having one variable and one static of identical damage types would make since if only to determine which has higher value, but using average for a variable also works.

There is absolutely zero textual reason to think that the time delay of the HP minus has any bearing on this at all.

I'm not quite sure what you are saying here. I think it is that persistent damage is actual damage that is delayed and not a condition. But that contradicts sentences 4 & 6 of the Persistent Damage rules.

The Imm/Weak/Res rules happen way before the end of foe's turn pops the damage itself.

They happen when you perform the attack itself. And as the persistent damage rules state, you do the same Imm/Weak/Res procedure a second time if an effect carries both normal and persistent damage.

This is both wrong and right. Yes we checked for IWR to the initial damage damage to see if we could apply the persistent condition. For house keeping reasons you could turn the "1d4 persistent fire damage" into "1d4+Weakness-Resistance persistent fire damage" but then you have to remember to make sure the values of Weakness and Resistance haven't changed.

If you change that Imm/Weak/Res procedure to merge separate instances based on damage type, then you merge all the previously thought separate instances of bleed, etc, when that attack lands.

You cant merge instances of persistent damage, because as the rules state you can only have one of each type, and you can't merge types that don't match.

I agree with Samir that 'multiple bleed sources on a single Strike' is a case they should cover while they're at it with their upcoming clarification, as there is certainly room for confusion. I would currently combine them as the clarification speaks of combining ALL damage before processing IWR for an effect (not conditional upon whether that damage is actually affected by IWR at this moment). But who knows if that's intended.

I don't think it's a big deal for gameplay either way – you can already stack persistent damage vertically by using different types, and while that can be fun, it's not a particularly oppressive strategy.

It is covered under the persistent damage rules, though i think a clarification is warranted. Persistent damage is only a condition that when triggered deals damage. I think, but would like clarification on, combining damage can give you multiple cases of the condition, but if i have two [Persistent Fire 4]'s it does not become [Persistent Fire 8] when combined.

Breaking down the rule

You are taking damage from an ongoing effect, such as from being lit on fire (fluff text).

This appears as “X persistent [type] damage,” where “X” is the amount of damage dealt and “[type]” is the damage type (this clarifies how to read the entry, mostly its initializing the variables).

Like normal damage, it can be doubled or halved based on the results of an attack roll or saving throw (Special rule stating that X can be doubled or halved).

Instead of taking persistent damage immediately, you take it at the end of each of your turns as long as you have the condition (Clearly stating persistent damage is a condition and states when it triggers),

rolling any damage dice anew each time (States how to deal with a variable X).

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. (Self explanatory and states again persistent damage is a condition)

KlampK wrote:

Why?

If they didn't do the math, then they screwed up.
If they did do the math then either they screwed up, or the community is missing something?

Unless you have a different set of alternatives, I'd rather take the chance on the community missing something, especially with how quickly we went to yelling the sky was falling.

If they didn’t do the math they screwed up, but in an unforeseen consequences way. Perfectly understandable, stupid mistake but those happen.

If they did do the math, they actually thought going through with it was a good idea. That’s much much worse judgement.

There are a lot of moving pieces, if they did the math and most of the pieces aligned in acceptable margins, then it does not mean that is was worse judgment than being a stupid mistake. And without knowing their thought process it seems absurd to assume they used poor judgment instead of a mistake.

With how the community only seamed to focus on how weakness was applied I am inclined to believe we have seriously missed something, focusing on the raptor in front of us, while blissfully unaware of the won coming at us from the side.

I think that is a distinct possibility that's how they did the math, I also think there wasn't enough time for the community to properly try it.

KlampK wrote:

Tridus wrote:

I mean, the problem with the thing they tried is how easily it was to utterly break it with game-warping effect. The problem wasn't wanting a standardized rule.

I don't think that's an entirely fair assessment. Something on Paizo's side must have been mathing out correctly, unless this was a last minute change. That said as you said having a standard rule, that has a good explanation is a must.

I’d like to believe they didn’t math it out, because that’s much better than the alternative.

Why?

If they didn't do the math, then they screwed up.
If they did do the math then either they screwed up, or the community is missing something?

Unless you have a different set of alternatives, I'd rather take the chance on the community missing something, especially with how quickly we went to yelling the sky was falling.

I just want the question explicitly addressed, with some examples.
I think it's important to show us how to deal with persistent with multiple fonts during the same "instance" while they are at it, since it's a gray area of damage and condition at the same time and there isn't any examples for this.
If it's either the safer way of ignoring the damage rules and check each persistent and applying just the greater, or the sane way of following the rules for damage and after calculate the damage, apply it as a condition instead of resolving IWR and applying the damage.

I see where you are coming from and I agree it needs to be clarified far better than it was written.

The fact that the persistent damage condition is a rider condition that applies a damage value, called persistent damage, that can be altered based on the degree of success of the initial attack/save, and that you can be afflicted with multiple times/values, but only the highest of which is instanced at the end of your turns, is very poorly spelled out.

The fact that I had to read the rule and sidebar to cobble together that highly "cohesive" sentence shows you are right.

That said while it is clear if you combine damage you would not combine the conditions, I could be argued either way on whether combining damage would proc multiple persistent conditions.

I mean, the problem with the thing they tried is how easily it was to utterly break it with game-warping effect. The problem wasn't wanting a standardized rule.

I don't think that's an entirely fair assessment. Something on Paizo's side must have been mathing out correctly, unless this was a last minute change. That said as you said having a standard rule, that has an good explanation is a must.

KlampK wrote:

Like fury of blows, people complaining it would be worse than attacking twice for triggering weaknesses. Yeah, it is worse, would of been worse under the clarification, and will be worse under the errata. But, it was not designed to be better at triggering weaknesses it was designed for action compression and overcoming resistance.

The problem with Flurry had nothing to do with it being worse at triggering weaknesses: it was going to be flat out worse total damage because it was triggering weakness once while just attacking twice could easily trigger weakness six times.

The damage from weakness when you could double dip it could add up so fast that it became the primary source of damage. Especially with the clarification the Foundry folks got that you'd actually collapse all the instances as part of combining the damage so Flurry would trigger weakness once while just a single strike could trigger it three times.

"Flurry of blows is a trap option" doesn't make any sense. The new update fixes that. Weakness is supposed to be a thing you aim for because its bonus damage, not a thing you just stack up a single element for, create a weakness, and then trigger it multiple times every hit.

This kinda highlights my point. Yes flurry the same weakness target twice would have lower damage than two separate attacks, it did before and after the clarification and probably will after the errata. But that is not what flurry is for.

The flurry only triggering once, is misleading, it would become once per type. Which is exactly how it is with the proposed errata. Also is it a trap option if you are not using it for the intended purpose. Screws aren't garbage just cause you decided to hit them in as nails.

The more i think on it the more i think the community was in the wrong. I will say the bookkeeping could have become a pain in the but, but i still think we were wrong.

Listening to what people people where complaining about, and looking at the actual abilities i was begging to feel like Inspector Finch after Larkhill. All the small things in the rules where becoming clear and i was seeing that the trees actually had individual leaves instead of a green blob.

Like fury of blows, people complaining it would be worse than attacking twice for triggering weaknesses. Yeah, it is worse, would of been worse under the clarification, and will be worse under the errata. But, it was not designed to be better at triggering weaknesses it was designed for action compression and overcoming resistance.

I understand adjusting the combat encounters, however I have not played with the subsystems enough to know how to adjust the scoring limits, and the book is rather unhelpful in its directions.

So is there an easy method to adjust the subsystems for 5 players?

I understand adjusting the combat encounters, however I have not played with the subsystems enough to know how to adjust the scoring limits, and the book is rather unhelpful in its directions.

So is there an easy method to adjust the subsystems for 5 players?