Nelzy's page

Trip.H is right, this will be up to the GM what to include and RAW we can only use the list paiso provided.

it might even be RAI since they reprinted some old item on the food list and not some others, so they obviously looked back on old items when they made the list.
but since book space is a thing its also possible they had to cut some items to save space.

yea its abit wierd.

what i can see its one of the following
- ither you auto hit it,
- or they missed to type out the AC,
- or you cant attack the field directly and only attacks that are blocked by the field damages it.

YuriP wrote:

Currently we use Mark's interpretation from playtest time, How It's Played, and FoundryVTT where each damage type creates a new, separate "instance" to be resolved in IWR.

No one knows if it's official (because Paizo has never said anything officially), but it's currently the least problematic rule regarding IWR because it allows weaknesses and resistances to act separately.

Yes it does seem to be the simplest way forward.

However when does shield blocking happen?

Since the trigger is when you "would take damage", it must happen after resistance/weakness, its best not to over think how this would look, its a balance/gameification of the mechanic that make it "not over complicated" with recalculating and stuff.

The book have a seperate section with only alchemical foods, they all have Alchemical and Consumable trait, All of them are things you eat or drink and have a food reference or pun in the name.

so i would not let all Elixir into that category even if the book list a few elixirs in the list.

its need to be something more then just "you drink or eat it"

so the best guidline is do the item have a clear reference to food or drink in its name (or description) is the closes definition we have.

but since some of the old items like jurneybread is reprinted in the book, it could be as simple as that list is all there is and nothing else.

1 - General rules say "Always round down unless otherwise specified."

2 - This is abit of a gray area, but i belive its after ress and weakness

3 - Critical immunity say "When a creature immune to critical hits is critically hit by a Strike or other attack that deals damage, it takes normal damage instead of double damage. This does not make it immune to any other critical success effects of the actions, such as a critical specialization effect or the extra damage of the deadly trait. "

Feel like peopel stop reading half way
they prob have not updated it since to them everything is there.

If you have more than one type of resistance that would apply to the same instance of damage, use only the highest applicable resistance value, as described in weakness.

you cant stop reading here, you need to go to Weakness and read the rest.

If more than one weakness would apply to the same instance of damage, use only the highest applicable weakness value. This usually only happens when a creature is weak to both a type of damage and a material or trait, such as a cold iron axe cutting a monster that has weakness to cold iron and slashing.

So only way for this rules to even matter is Material and/or Holy/Unholy attacks.

Since they use natural language and the usage of the word "usually only" make its oblivious that this is something rare and not something that would occur with virtually all runes and class features that add damage to a strike.

so only the truly "overlapping" damage types (as the example showed) slashing cold iron cares about that rule, everything else that is just added damage of a singular type is just added damage

So a [1d12 slashing] + [1d6 fire] + [1d6 cold] + [1d6 acid] + [2d6 precision]
that dont have Holy, Unholy, or a material type would trigger all the listed Resistances and weaknesses

atleast i dont need to do any mental gymnastics to understand what they wrote and came to the same conclusion as both Foundry and the developers.

Just wanted to point out that the patch consumes a potion when you set it up.

so you need to commit a potion that you might want to use that day.

basically it costs 1 potion/day if you want it to always be available

Personaly i feel like ither everything is pre remaster(for all players and monsters) or nothing is. it feels wrong to mix and match.

on to the topic of battle forms, i stoped even trying to use them since the rules are horrible (as you might have noticed),
to much are unclear and will depend alot on you GM's ruling, so for me druids have lost one of its core pillars.
but i have accepted that since they have not even wanted to comment on the state of Battle Forms for years now, let alone giving a erata or clarification.

Lyra Amary wrote:

It's strange because according to RAW the resistance rules also state that multiple resistances don't apply to the same instance of damage except in the case of resistance to all damage but weakness doesn't have that specific allowance.

As far as my experience goes, Foundry doesn't follow that first rule and applies multiple resistances even if a creature doesn't have resistance to all so I'm uncertain if they can be counted as a perfect rules source here.

I understand and agree with Foundry's ruling of RAW on resistance,

because the part about multiple resistance to one damage instance references the weakness section("as described in weakness") that talks about cold iron slashing damage or holy fire damage and the like. it dont talk about an attack that deal slashing and fire damage.

the example and clarification it this section even say
"This usually only happens when a creature is weak to both a type of damage and a material or trait, such as a cold iron axe cutting a monster that has weakness to cold iron and slashing."

the "usually only" part makes it clear to me that its something rare and not something that almost every rune or alot of monster in the system would trigger

and i believe that paiso would have used a better example otherwise

aka its reserved to material and holy/unholy infused attack and when those resistances and weaknesses are in play.

but lets can the resistance discussion since there are several thread on this forum on this topic already.

---------------------------------

It was nice to read someone playtesting the mythic rules even if they confirmed my fears about casters in mythic play.

Kelseus wrote:

Truthfully, I think the rewording was done to reduce word count and the rune count confusion is an unintended consequence.

The rule is you can only etch a number of runes onto a weapon equal to its potency rune value. But this is not etching a rune, it is being granted by the spirit.

That's what I was meaning when I said that if we didn't have that original version of the text I don't think we'd have people expecting that the limit would apply.

Actualy the rules say: "The number of property runes a weapon or armor can have is equal to the value of its potency rune."

it dont mention if they are etched or not.

and we dont need the old text since RAW it follows the intent of the developers.

I preferred the old one aswell, but we use the new version. just as we prob are going to have to deal with 10min cd sure strike

yea its a bit wierd, or(jokingly) paiso's definition of difficult terrain is anything directly outside the deer path, paved road, flat dungeon tiles :p

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

So, the GM can describe to the player that "they weren't able to locate the creature," meaning the player can deduce that they failed their check (since a success would mean they did indeed locate the creature), and can use their reaction; where in the rules does it say that this is invalid?

I think you just made the same mistake as the author of the ability.

Just because someone did a Seek, does not mean there ever was a creature there to find.

If the roll result is secret, the player does not know if they succeeded and there truly is no creature hiding, or if it was a low roll and there easily could be a creature hiding.

You can make a secret perception roll with no opposing foe stealth! That happens all the time in empty rooms.

The lack of the player's ability to know that the GM's "you don't notice anyone" means that the room is / is not empty is the *whole point* of that being a secret check.

.

If the player has a reaction that, simply by its trigger condition, tells the player if that secret check succeeded/failed, that breaks the mechanic of secret perception checks.

you can just say, if i fail my seek i use the reaction.

and you wont gain any more information.

If you can use it: you will know because you just "spotted" them using the reaction,
if you cant use it you dont know if you crit failed or there where simply noone there to begin with.

no meta information gained, (unless you count the effect of the feature to be that)

i dont see the problem.

there are tons of things like that, so sometime you have to ask the gm, for example is this a spell with X trait since i have this feature and so on,

Same with OPs the seek action, you know that you tried to do a seek, so you can always remind the gm that if you failed you try to use that feature.

I agree with Bluemagetim, why take away good strategy/planing?, that is like saying since you bought a ladder the wall is now dubbled in height.

use logic rather then wim, if they try to prebuff just outside the door without subtle trait, then they will most likely trigger the combat.

if noone is around to hear it, then let them and then track how meny rounds of the buffs they waste getting to the encounter.

De incentivizing strategy is one of the worst things a gm can do even if they have good intentions.

In what book is this feat? cant find it anywhere.

my guess is that since Shifting faces is to impersonate someone of the same size, larger then life is a follow up that lets you take the form of someone large or huge instead, something you cant do otherwise.

but since i cant read the feat atm, thats just a guess on what the prereq do.

They're probably asking about the spells gained via Creed Magic, an 8th level feat

I would allow a battle harbinger to cast the spells gained via Creed Magic from scrolls, wands, and staves (and count them as added to their divine spell list since they prepare them "as divine spells"), but not prepare them in any slots other than the special creed slots gained via that feat

This isn't perfect parity with the magus's Studious Spells class feature, since the magus adds those spells to their spellbook (not to mention the battle harbinger has to spend a class feat on it) but it'll have to do by my reading

Ah sorry, ofc they are.

i think you are right in your interpretation since you do prepare them and not gain them as inate spells or something. but it is a gray area.

My guess is you are talking about Benediction and Malediction, since the basic creed spells for font is bless and bane.

Both are common Divine spells, so should not a cleric already have them as options to prepare? even without the feat.

Yes, i dont see why this would change the rule the when you reach a new stage of an affliction you suffer its effect.

"When you reach a given stage of an affliction, you are subjected to the effects listed for that stage."/quote]

Dont forget that it get the Extra rune on its weapon that champion lost.

i think its can be better then what people realize.

you still have the 4 most important spell slots, and can still use wands and scroll for all utility a regular cleric could give.

No when an action tell you to make a strike as a subordinate action, it only the regular strike action.

you cant replace a subordinate strike, with another action that also have a subordinate strike

An action might allow you to use a simpler action—usually one of the Basic Actions—in a different circumstance or with different effects. This subordinate action still has its normal traits and effects, but it's modified in any ways listed in the larger action. For example, an activity that tells you to Stride up to half your Speed alters the normal distance you can move in a Stride. The Stride would still have the move trait, would still trigger reactions that occur based on movement, and so on. The subordinate action doesn't gain any of the traits of the larger action unless specified. The action that allows you to use a subordinate action doesn't require you to spend more actions or reactions to do so; that cost is already factored in.

Using an activity is not the same as using any of its subordinate actions. For example, the quickened condition you get from the haste spell lets you spend an extra action each turn to Stride or Strike, but you couldn't use the extra action for an activity that includes a Stride or Strike. As another example, if you used an action that specified, “If the next action you use is a Strike,” an activity that includes a Strike wouldn't count, because the next thing you are doing is starting an activity, not using the Strike basic action

Nither can you Fly or climb with Quickened even if you have those movement types.

Animal companions have the same issue with their 1 independent action, only Stride or Strike.

Tridus wrote:

JiCi wrote:

Does the new Guardian class receive something to negate this?

Given its defensive specialty, that feels like it should be able to.

It didn't in the playtest IIRC. Will it in the final release? We don't know.

It would be great if it did because it would give the class something on-brand and unique. "I'm this hulking wall of steel that gets in your way when you try to harm my friends" is definitely playing to the fantasy the class is projecting.

It's likely we will see major changes. Guardian was rough in the playtest (which demonstrates the value of playtesting!).

But you know where I'm getting at, right?

Your fighter trained for defense and heavy armors... should be trained to carry and use the heaviest shield without penalty, if desired.

yea they should prob give Fighter and other classes with Heavy armor the option to take a feat similar to Unburdended Iron.

untill then you have to take adopted acestry and train like the dwarfs for Unburdended Iron

I think the Mythic Magic feat L8 is going to shred monsters from L8 onwards. Choose blazing bolt an Horizon thunder sphere. Can use Sure strike.

Horizon thunder sphere does half damage on a miss with the three action version.

L8 and mythic proficiency meens you get a 6 points boost at that level (which lasts until prof goes to master, L15 I think). Blazing bolt can have three targets. Not an AoE spell, but close. And that 6 point boost is a lot.

L10 might make it even better with the Shadow signet, as was already mentioned earlier. And there is always force barrage.

I don't think an ambusher with three resilient saves at L13 has much of a chance because any caster can pick any three spells from any list with the feat.

Yes Mythic casting works at lower levels, the biggest problem are at Higher level when Mythic resilience really becomes a problem, and by then mythic proficiency give you almost nothing, its not like for martial that gets +5 weapons. caster just get worse with levels.

Also Mythic Magic wont work for Horizon thunder sphere since you need to chose a spell with no more then 3 action cost when you select the feat.
and it have options for 2 round casting, sure you can houserule it and say you can only use the 1-3 action cost variant, but that would still be a houserule.

Mythic Magic is ok, but it feels more made for martials to gain spell casting and is insaine for them, even if just to get some buffs easy.

Battle Forms

needs more of an Overhaul but an errata could clear up and fix some of the issues with it.

The norm is that you are effected by your spells aswell, the Darkness spell dont let you see ither.

So unless the spell specifically say you can or you have another feature that say you can, you cant ignore your own spells effects.

Wanted to probe the mind of people on this interaction.

Frequency once per day

Your next fire spell leaves embers in its wake. If your next action is to Cast a Spell with an area and the fire trait, for 1 minute, your spell's area becomes difficult terrain as well as hazardous terrain, dealing 1 fire damage for each square a creature moves through.

How would this work with a duration spell that have a spell area that can move, like for example Something like Toxic cloud or an aura spell. (for arguments sake say they both have the fire trait so they qualify)

Both examples have an area and it moves,

For simplification i will refer to the effect of Charred Remains as "Charred" rather then saying boths its effect on the area all the time.

So what interaction do you think is the correct one?

1: the area the spell covers on casting becomes "Charred", just like with a spell like fireball.
2: the "Charred" is bound to the spells area and follows its movent if it would move
3: All area the spell covers over its duration becomes "Charred"

and ofc for all 3 the "Charred" effect have a duration of 1min, no matter what the spells duration is.

I think 2 is the most correct way, since RAW it say "your spell's area becomes" "Charred" it could have said "your spell's area upon casting becomes" "Charred"
but they did not, sure this could be a oversight since they did not think if its interaction with moving duration spells or it could be totaly intended.

i would rule it to be 2 since it make most sense to me RAW and dont think it would be TGTBT since its a 1/day things that barely do anything anyway(and is equally harmful to your teammates)

Ravingdork wrote:

I would not recommend basing any assumptions off of gliding abilities, since none of them work as written.

Gliding in this game is totally borked.

That's part of my original point. Leshy Glide assumes that falling is not instantaneous and would be useless if it were.

its dont require that at all, you can use it when standing on the ledge of a cliff and it works just fine. or after you have fallen 500ft

there is an entire thread about Leshy glide on this forum with several examples and "pictures" how the movment would work RAW

https://paizo.com/threads/rzs43b7t?How-do-you-use-Leshy-Glide#1

Nelzy wrote:

Even using Preremaster Highjump you only get 8ft high on a crit.

my guess you understood Sudden leap wrong even preremaster.

Sudden leap only lets you use the Longjump DC not its Success and Crit success parts. (its unchanged in remasterd)

So your argument is that it has always been useless? That's an odd stance to take.

you framed it like remaster made it useless witch it did not, and also i never agreed that the feat was useless,

Nelzy wrote:

Why would Sudden leap be useless? its both lets you do one attack while in the jump something you cant do normaly and dubbels the distance.

Also the static DC on Longjump is 15, and High jump is 30, so you defenetly also still get something from the text "determine the DC using the Long Jump DCs"

It's useless because the most you can high jump is 8ft under the new rules. Under the old rules, the long jump DC determined your jump distance, so you could do the same with high jump and sudden leap. It's a totally different mechanic.

Even using Preremaster Highjump you only get 8ft high on a crit.

Sudden leap only lets you use the Longjump DC not its Success and Crit success parts. (its unchanged in remasterd)

Critical Success Increase the maximum vertical distance to 8
feet, or increase the maximum vertical distance to 5 feet
and maximum horizontal distance to 10 feet.
Success Increase the maximum vertical distance to 5 feet.
Failure You Leap normally.
Critical Failure You don’t Leap at all, and instead you fall prone
in your space.

Critical Success You Leap up to 8 feet vertically and 10 feet horizontally.
Success You Leap up to 5 feet vertically and 5 feet horizontally.
Failure You Leap normally.
Critical Failure You fall prone in your space.

The text for Suddeen leap is unchanged in remastered

You make an impressive leap and swing while you soar. Make a Leap, High Jump, or Long Jump and attempt one melee Strike at any point during your jump. Immediately after the Strike, you fall to the ground if you’re in the air, even if you haven’t reached the maximum distance of your jump. If the distance you fall is no more than the height of your jump, you take no damage and land upright.

When attempting a High Jump or Long Jump during a Sudden Leap, determine the DC using the Long Jump DCs , and increase your maximum distance to double your Speed.

Special If you have Felling Strike, you can use Felling Strike instead of a normal Strike. This doesn’t change the number of actions Sudden Leap takes.

Why would Sudden leap be useless? its both lets you do one attack while in the jump something you cant do normaly and dubbels the distance.

Also the static DC on Longjump is 15, and High jump is 30, so you defenetly also still get something from the text "determine the DC using the Long Jump DCs"

But both Flying kick and Waal run would be almost pointless if the base thing is you can do one action before you fall.

i would asume that they are special cases where you have time to do anything other then reaction before you fall.

and flying last round is not realy the same as jumping of a cliff, so i would not rule it the same as not using the fly action.

so you cant realy fall at the end of your turn nor after one action it needs to be something worse

This basicly boils down to when do falling happen again.

dont think any of the threads have gotten to a clear answer on that yet.

but having the rules work like looneytunes fells wrong

a bonus vs grapple would not apply vs the strikes both post and pre remaster when a monster with the grab ability strikes you.

an Hypothetically if you had an ability to do a feint and on a crit you could make a strike you would not apply your strike bonuses on the feint check.

its a smal destinction but i agree with Thefinish and Finoan

RAW no, since you did not take the required option, you only have the options to prepare both types anyway from Versetile font.

If it was not for "Once you choose, you can't change your choice short of divine intervention" you could have just retrained and there would be no issue, but since they obviously wanted this choice to matter more then regular things and did not include in Versatile font that you also qualifies you for feats (if it an oversight or not we dont know)
im afraid you are out of luck.

For example they could have written in Versatile font that you now qualify for feat that require both, but the did not, they could have written in the requirement of Restorative Channel "healing font or Versitile font" aswell but did not.

Everything points to that they really wanted that choice to be binding and something you would need to plan ahead for.

Feel like what people have said before is still true, unless you are force feed the potion or have something else that temporary removes its effect you cant yourself drink the elixir.

They should remove Exemplar Expertise (10) and add First Ikon (4) to the dedication and dont have the ikon in the dedication feat iself.

then its 2 feat investment for something good like most other.

Removing Expertise is only to keep the number of feat equal to most other but you could just have so the archtype have more feats, but it makes sence since no other class archtype have a feat for increasing class DC so thats stick out.

They totaly did Battelform dirty, i understand they wanted to tone down Wildshape and the like from Pf1, but how they did it is a travesty, everything that gives a Battelform might aswell not exist just because of how bad and unscalable they are.

We dont ban anything yet.

Doorknob is good, but i would not say it ban worthy.

Just curious what made blinded for 1 turn on crit such a nuisance in your encounters?

some creatures have ways around hidden's concealment by "not targeting", with aoe and the like so its not always as bad

Nelzy wrote:

We used version 1, Since as you said Discovery hints thats you already know all the skills, and nothing in influence suggest they are hidden.

Discovery hints both, as already stated by the OP:

Discover Action wrote:

Success [...] You learn which skill that can Influence the NPC has the lowest DC (skipping any skills that you already know), [...]

The bolded text suggests that you're not supposed to know the skills you could use (as long as you don't discover them, which you will then skip at the next successful discovery).

The bolded part is so you can reuse the discovery to get the second lowest DC and so forth and not rediscover the same lowest DC over and over.

but i can understand that the text could be misinterpret.

it would be an odd way to write it if the intent was to discover them in order of Lowest to highest, and would lead to some less then fun things for character with few skills since time can be an issue even if time is unknown to the player.

Also another note, the use the same Language on Both discovery skills and Influence (typically found in the NPC’s influence stat block)

We used version 1, Since as you said Discovery hints thats you already know all the skills, and nothing in influence suggest they are hidden.

Also similarly Hazzards(uses the same wording) also dont say that the skill used to disable them are hidden and dont always make sense so unless you want your players to play make 10 guesses you might aswell tell them cause if they have the expertise to disable the trap they should have the insight that they can do it.

Its going to feel horrible as a caster using save spell to battle Creatures with mythic resilience.

Following the Monster creation rules we get this at level 13+

• 
  Ambusher: Fort: Low(R) Ref: High(R) Will: Average or High(R)
  
• 
  Brute: Fort: High(R) Ref: Average or Low(R*) Will: Low
  
• 
  Caster: Fort: Low Ref: Average(R*) Will: High(R)
  
• 
  Striker: Fort: Low Ref: High(R) Will: Average(R*)
  

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Average % chances over all 20 levels VS monster with Mythic Resiliance on that Save

Low Save: 8.5% Full damage/effect (Failure), 49,5% Half damage/effect (Success), 42% No effect (Critical Success)
Moderate Save: 5% Full damage/effect (Failure), 38% Half damage/effect (Success), 57% No effect (Critical Success)
High Save: 5% Full damage/effect (Failure), 23.25% Half damage/effect (Success), 71.75% No effect (Critical Success)

Realy hope they just forgot the "made by non-mythic creatures" on Resilience, and they add it with a errata.

They realy need a way to spend Mythic points to ignore this defence like the other have ways to ignore it.

Anyone else that feel like resistance from ancestries are abit low? it always feels weird to me that something that thematicly should be something they should have natural protection against lagg so far behind cheap basic items,

Most (if not all) are just ½ your level.

While you can get 5 ress at level 6 with items for not mutch gold.
and when your ancestry catches up at level 10 you get the new item variant of 10 resistance.
so its not even that on some levels its better. apart from first 4 levels its always doing catch-up.

So if you want to lean into your ancestral resistance you would ither need to invest into items that totaly nullifies your bonus or be worse then most other in the party at your supposed element, and that always felt wrong on a RP level

They ither should have made it full level or made it stack with one other source of resistance,
or atleast have it as an option in the form of an ancestry feat.

What do you all think on this topic?

I always interpreted destroyed as there is nothing left.

else i see no reason to use distinction from normal.

Tengu, p.32, Society paragraph.

There is a few redundant lines

Quote:

Roosted tengu tend to be more traditionalist and conservative and are especially concerned with preserving their culture in the face of years of erosion from oppression. Migrating tengu, on the other hand, voraciously absorb the culture of the various nations and settlements that they now call home.

this is immediately followed by

Quote:

Roosted tengu tend toward more traditional names, while migrating tengu readily absorb and repurpose the culture of those around them.

The second part is mostly a shorter re-wording of the first part.

The second part is specifically about names and the first is about culture/Behavior.

sure you could argue that names is included in the first paragraph about culture but thats not automatically true,

just because you adopt to a culture dont mean you automatically use names from that culture, but for migrating tengu they specify that they do. so a migrating tengu living among orcs would prob have an orc name.

A massive storm cloud forms in the air above the area, spreading rain and gales. The wind imposes a –4 circumstance penalty to physical ranged attacks. The air in the area is greater difficult terrain for flying creatures. When you Cast this Spell and the first time each round you Sustain it on subsequent rounds, you can choose one of the following storm effects. You can't choose the same effect twice in a row.

Blizzard The driving snow deals 4d8 cold damage to each creature in or below the storm with no save. Everything in or beneath the cloud is concealed by driving snow and any ground is difficult terrain.
Hail Each creature in or below the storm takes 4d10 bludgeoning damage with a basic Fortitude save.
Lightning Choose up to 10 creatures in or below the storm to be struck by lightning. Each of them takes 7d6 electricity damage with a basic Reflex save.
Tornado A roughly cylindrical whirlwind appears in or below the cloud in a 30-foot radius. Each creature in the whirlwind is thrown 40 feet upward.

We had some arguments exactly how this spells effect work at the table last session.

How long do the effects last? the implication is that they last untill your next turn when you sustain it again, but that is never stated and some of them would do nothing if they are instantaneous for example the concealment and diffucult terrain.

we ruled it that it last untill next sustain as implied.
but then we came to the last option Tornado and it feels like some text is missing to explain how they mean for this to work.

Is it a "one off" instant tossing up that make them fall taking 20damage and be prone? or are they stuck in the air untill the effect end at next susstain if they dont have fly?

Some argued that 20damage + prone was "good enuf"
and that having the option to hold creatures in the air for 1 round ever 2 rounds was to powerful

how would all you rule this ambiguous spell?

Short summary how my gm ruled it after some discussion:

Blizzard: Instant damage + 1 round concealment and Difficult terrain
Hail: instant damage
Lightning: instant damage
Tornado: instant toss up and directly falling for 20damage and prone.

Helvellyn wrote:

sacrelicious2 wrote:

The issue at the heart of this is "What is an instance of damage". You seem to be thinking that the fire damage is the same instance of damage as the slashing, but I don't think that holds up.

The example on page 408 has an attack with multiple types of damage exactly like the fire and slashing damage you mention here. In the case of the example cold iron and slashing rather than Fire and Slashing as you mentioned. The example specifically states that in these circumstances only the highest applies.

I think what they're saying in that example is that there is a difference between an attack that does two different types of damage, and an attack that does one type of damage that also happens to have a material or trait.

Slashing and fire damage are two separate damage types. You can say "that d8 was slashing and that d6 was fire". Slashing cold iron you can't split like that, you can't say what part of the cold iron sword hit was slashing and what part was cold iron.

The example talks about how a single instance of damage "usually only" touches multiple weaknesses in the case of a type+material or type+trait. Because of the "usually only", you can infer that an attack with two separate types is a different story, with separate damage instances that both really trigger a weakness (or get held up by resistance).

Exactly could not have said it better.

HammerJack wrote:

Aside from what was already quoted, it's symmetrical with resistance, and how you'd resist both slashing and fire from a flaming longsword if you have Resist Fire and Resist Slashing or just have Resist All.

It states that resistance is applied in the same way as weaknesses with only the highest resistance being used. With the exception of Resist All which is called out at the end as a possible ability, the section on resistance does not provide any example or subsequent text to support the statement that you would apply both fire and slashing.

With regards to Mark's quote the main problem with using that is that the rules text has been changed for the remaster.

The text has changed to:

This usually only happens when a creature is weak to both a type of damage and a material or trait, such as a cold iron axe cutting a monster that has weakness to cold iron and slashing.

The text has now specifically changed to included traits in the rule. If we take the flaming longsword again, the damage types are slashing and fire as the fire component has a trait (Fire) the sentence applies. The example which also points towards the flaming long sword only effecting the highest weakness was also added after the remaster and as a result there is now additional text supporting a different interpretation.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

However, giving this some more thought I think my initial statement about Thaumaturges specifically is incorrect in most cases.
As Personal antithesis has no trait, damage type, or material type; I think you can also make a good claim that the multiple weakness rule doesn't apply to it.

Mortal Weakness is also similar. That ability too doesn't add traits to the attack so unless your triggering the same weakness (Attacking a werewolf with a silver weapon and using Mortal Weakness) again a good argument can be made that the highest weakness only rule doesn't apply here either.

the trait part they are talking about are for example holy from champion and follow the same rules as a weapon material. the swords damage would be holy and slashing and therefor only activate one of holy or slashing weakness/ressistance,

a flaming sword would deal slashing + fire damage, not slashing fire damage so the special rule segment would not apply and the normal resistance rule would be applied, (ie: "If you have resistance to a type of damage, each time you take that type of damage, reduce the amount of damage you take by the listed number")

Unfortunately, the Foundry VTT does not seem to rule this way, and allows players to stack multiple resistances when taking single hits. (or pop multiple weaknesses in single hits)

That alone will have a whole hecking lot of tables thinking that's the "normal" ruling.

As stated in another thread on the resistans and weakness rules you can read everything that way, its just messily written. but since even the developers are running it that way i say its RAI

the instace of damage part of resistance and only applying one resistance refers to weakness that talks about things like "silver physical" damage. all other parts of the text dont care about instances of damage, so i support the ruling that you apply all resistances to eatch damage type you have, and only make exceptions when something have several types for the same damage type as in the example silver slashing damage from a silver sword.