Resolving multiple damage types


Rules Discussion

51 to 79 of 79 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
The former is dealing with same instances aka weapon and materials damage.

The word "usually" is not the word "always," nor are they synonymous.

Perhaps I'd better understand how you are getting what you are getting out of the presented rules text if you would demonstrate to me a situation in which the paragraph that ends with the sentence "This usually happens only when a monster is weak to both a type of physical damage and the material a weapon is made of." applies to anything other than exactly only that one case - because then perhaps I could understand why the sentence is "this usually happens only when..." rather than "this only happens when..."

Rysky wrote:
It’s not a common weapon combo... How many PCs do you know who regularly carry around Cold Iron Holy Frost weapons?

Cold iron is readily available, affordable, and the most commonly appearing material type in bestiary weakness entries.

I'm also not seeing anything that makes frost and/or holy runes less likely for a player to find/make/buy than flaming or anything else of similar level.

Or are you just specifically trying to say that this weapon combo which is perfect for fighting a balor, but also happens to work exceptionally well against a wide variety of common enemies is such a wacky idea that no one would ever think to put it together unless they were specifically hunting for balor?

Shadow Lodge

Rysky wrote:
How many PCs do you know who regularly carry around Cold Iron Holy Frost weapons?

If they expect to face demons? Definitely expect to see Cold Iron Holy weapons. Cold is less likely, but given outsiders tend to be awfully resistant to electricity and fire, it's not exactly a horrible choice for someone who's done a little research and isn't expecting to fight in arctic regions where cold resistance might be common.

Please note that as a player, I haven't really looked closely at PF2 demons, but I'm getting the impression* they have a lot of the same general strengths and weaknesses as they have in the previous 40 years of editions:

  • Use Cold Iron against Demons
  • Use Silver against Devils
  • Use Holy against both, and pretty much anything else you'll face as the 'good guys'.
Okay, the Holy rune will let you down when facing non-evil opponents, but most of the elemental options will probably let you down far more often.

*So far, we've used silver weapons against some low level devils and the Core Rulebook seems to confirm one classic demon weakness:

Cold Iron Weapon (p599) wrote:
Cold iron weapons deal additional damage to creatures with weakness to cold iron, like demons and fey.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
thenobledrake wrote:
Rysky wrote:
The former is dealing with same instances aka weapon and materials damage.
The word "usually" is not the word "always," nor are they synonymous.
And you’re ignoring the example to place too much emphasis on this word choice.
Quote:
Perhaps I'd better understand how you are getting what you are getting out of the presented rules text if you would demonstrate to me a situation in which the paragraph that ends with the sentence "This usually happens only when a monster is weak to both a type of physical damage and the material a weapon is made of." applies to anything other than exactly only that one case - because then perhaps I could understand why the sentence is "this usually happens only when..." rather than "this only happens when..."
You want me to make up monsters that haven’t been statted yet? It’s futureproofing. Read the actual example instead of getting caught up on the “usually”.
Quote:
Rysky wrote:
It’s not a common weapon combo... How many PCs do you know who regularly carry around Cold Iron Holy Frost weapons?

Cold iron is readily available, affordable, and the most commonly appearing material type in bestiary weakness entries.

I'm also not seeing anything that makes frost and/or holy runes less likely for a player to find/make/buy than flaming or anything else of similar level.

Cold Iron and Holy isn’t an odd combo, Cold Iron Holy Frost is rather specific (and not every demon has Weakness Frost).
Quote:
Or are you just specifically trying to say that this weapon combo which is perfect for fighting a balor, but also happens to work exceptionally well against a wide variety of common enemies is such a wacky idea that no one would ever think to put it together unless they were specifically hunting for balor?

Extra damage is nice against all enemies. I’ve never seen one elemental damage preferred over the other after Holy though.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Taja the Barbarian wrote:
Rysky wrote:
How many PCs do you know who regularly carry around Cold Iron Holy Frost weapons?

If they expect to face demons? Definitely expect to see Cold Iron Holy weapons. Cold is less likely, but given outsiders tend to be awfully resistant to electricity and fire, it's not exactly a horrible choice for someone who's done a little research and isn't expecting to fight in arctic regions where cold resistance might be common.

Please note that as a player, I haven't really looked closely at PF2 demons, but I'm getting the impression* they have a lot of the same general strengths and weaknesses as they have in the previous 40 years of editions:

  • Use Cold Iron against Demons
  • Use Silver against Devils
  • Use Holy against both, and pretty much anything else you'll face as the 'good guys'.
Okay, the Holy rune will let you down when facing non-evil opponents, but most of the elemental options will probably let you down far more often.

*So far, we've used silver weapons against some low level devils and the Core Rulebook seems to confirm one classic demon weakness:

Cold Iron Weapon (p599) wrote:
Cold iron weapons deal additional damage to creatures with weakness to cold iron, like demons and fey.

Lots of Immunities and Resistances have been removed in P2.

Devils are immune to Fire (and the Gelugon Cold) and the Balor is Immune to Fire as well. No Demon or Devil is Immune or even Resistant to Acid or Electricity, and only the Balor has an Elemental Weakness.


Rysky wrote:
You want me to make up monsters that haven’t been statted yet? It’s futureproofing.

Yes, I want you to illustrate how your interpretation works so that I can understand how it differs from my interpretation.

You might be right that is futureproofing, but I don't see that as necessarily being the case because you could be wrong just like I can - so I'm asking you to help me out, rather than just keep going "nah, you're wrong." like you've been doing so far.

Rysky wrote:
Read the actual example...

What example? I do not see an example of applying multiple resistances or weaknesses. I only see an example of applying a single weakness, and an example of applying resistance to all damage to multiple types of damage.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

As P1 shows, futureproofing is very much necessary.

I've given an example earlier, if the same instance of damage is made up of multiple damages then the highest Resistance/Weakness would apply, mostly I see this being the purview of spells "You cast Holy Barbecue, which deal 10d6 damage. This damage is fire and holy." If it instead went "you deal 5d6 of fire damage and 5d6 of holy damage" you would use both Resistances/Weaknesses.

It's not me saying nah you're wrong over and over, it's that you're fixating on a word that is irrelevant to the rules and example and positing that the rules are wrong because of it.

As for applying multiple different Weaknesses/Resistances that's in the rules as the singles, there's no special extra rule for dealing with multiple Resistances/Weaknesses, the only thing that matters is if the damages come from the same instance or not.


Rysky wrote:
...there's no special extra rule for dealing with multiple Resistances/Weaknesses, the only thing that matters is if the damages come from the same instance or not.

This leads back to that 1) there is no evidence that your interpretation of "instance of damage" is correct and mine isn't, and 2) that it definitely looks like a special rule dealing with multiple resistances/weaknesses when the writers decided to have a paragraph says "if multiple thing, do this" for both.

Sure, maybe I'm "fixating" on words - but how the <expletive deleted> else is reading a rule supposed to work besides thinking the words in that rule and the examples meant to clarify/demonstrate that rule are there for a reason?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Then what does same instance mean then?


Like I said before, it could mean each time that damage happens - damage because that Strike hit = 1 instance; damage because you didn't critically succeed at that saving throw against that spell = 1 instance; persistant damage = 1 instance each time it happens before you pass the flat check to remove it.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

It does and is also more specific, referring to the die. It also applies to failed saves and persistent damage.


Rysky wrote:
It does and is also more specific, referring to the die. It also applies to failed saves and persistent damage.

I am confused. Partly because the second sentence seems to suggest you do not see that my previous post includes both failed saves and persistent damage, and partly because you are now seeming to be saying that our two entirely incompatible, definitely mutually exclusive, interpretations of "instance of damage" are both correct.

If the whole set of damage that happens because a Strike hit = 1 instance of damage then why would that not be the 1 instance the rules are talking about and why would you split it into further instances?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Okay now I'm confused cause I have no idea what you're talking about.

(pure hypothetical) I hit them with my napalm sword (sword damage and fire damage, Slashing and Fire Resistance/Weakness would apply), and now they're on fire taking persistent damage (fire damage, Fire Resistance/Weakness would apply).

I don't know of any effect that's an attack + save + persistent damage with three different times for damage that exists right now.


Rysky wrote:

Okay now I'm confused cause I have no idea what you're talking about.

I don't know of any effect that's an attack + save + persistent damage with three different times for damage that exists right now.

I think I see where you got confused. I was not giving you a description of a single game element that happened to have multiple instances of damage.

What I was saying was 3 separate examples of what I believe "same instance of damage" refers to.

1) All the damage dealt because of a Strike hitting - no matter how many types of damage are involved, this is just 1 instance of damage.

2) All the damage dealt because of the result of a saving throw against a spell - no matter how many types of damage are involved, this is just 1 instance of damage.

3) Persistent damage is 1 instance of damage each time it applies.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Ah okay.

I disagree with your definitions. The instance still depends on how the damage is being dealt.


Yes, I know that you disagree with my definition... that's why I've been asking you where yours came from - maybe I'll agree with yours once I understand how you got to it instead of getting to the same one that I did.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Reading and inferring from how the examples are set up in the Resistance and Weakness sections.

At which point I posted in the other thread basically saying "this is how it works I'm pretty sure" and Mark confirmed it was. There was no outside reading or explanations given to me, I got my understanding of it solely from how it's presented in the Core Rulebook.


By "the other thread" you are referring to the one I linked before that's from before the rules were actually finished, right?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Has the rules for Resistance/Weakness changed in any way since the Playtest?


I have no idea. I only know what the rule book currently says and that ti doesn't seem to me like it lines up with what you think it means.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I do not believe it has changed in any significant way since then.

The way I read it it read fine to me, and a designer confirmed that's how it's supposed to work.


See, that's the thing... I don't have any evidence that the confirmation given by the designer was made with the rule being confirmed saying what it says now.

I know that whatever the rule text was then worked the way the designer said it worked then, but that's totally irrelevant to now without either seeing what the relevant text was then, or having a new confirmation for now.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

So with absolutely nothing having changed, you've decided it's completely changed.


No... what?

You didn't say that it hadn't changed at all, so I thought it was uncertain whether or not it had changed.

Be clear: Did it change, or did it not?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

To my knowledge it hasn't changed at all.


"To my knowledge" is not "absolutely nothing changed" - you get that, right?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Really?


Really.

It's like me saying "To my knowledge it has completely changed." Does that make you believe that it absolutely has changed? No - and it shouldn't because it's not even a definitive statement.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

The difference between that is that I've quoted how it originally worked in the other thread and how it works now, and from what I've seen and to my knowledge (because that's how rules works) they work the same.

You are seriously grasping at straws here.


I have since gone back and read every post in that thread from Mark's reply to you until the end of the thread.

What I saw is that even with the clarification, I'm not the only one that was still confused, nor the only one that believes that the text of the rules doesn't line up with the way Mark is saying they are meant to work... which, likely because being a designer is more about actually making the rules than talking about them online, none of the designers posted any reply to in the thread.

51 to 79 of 79 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Resolving multiple damage types All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.