Resolving multiple damage types


Rules Discussion

1 to 50 of 79 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Hey,

So quick question. If an attack does two damage types, and the target has resistance to both, are resistances applied separately?

So like, a dragon instinct barbarian who's raging with a sword does slashing and fire. He hits a skeleton, that resists both types of damage. The two damage types are resolved independent of each other, right?

Thanks,
Ghorrin Redblade


Yes.


In the absence of contradictory information, that's what I thought, just wanted to make sure. My head kept wanting to go with 4e's rules on the matter (the damage is applied as one big chunk, and it goes against the lower resistance value).

Thanks!


I went looking for the rules quote that supports applying resistance against each type of damage being dealt, but when I got to the page it is on (453) I saw something I think actually contradicts how I thought it worked:

"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."

That seems to be saying that the skeleton in the OP would only reduce the total damage by the higher of its resistances.

Originally I had thought resistances would be figured independently and follow the example in the paragraph following the above quote even though that paragraph is explicitly talking about having resistance to all damage, and that what I've quoted above was actually saying that if you have the same type of resistance from different sources that you only use the highest, but those aren't the words that are there.


thenobledrake wrote:

I went looking for the rules quote that supports applying resistance against each type of damage being dealt, but when I got to the page it is on (453) I saw something I think actually contradicts how I thought it worked:

"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."

That seems to be saying that the skeleton in the OP would only reduce the total damage by the higher of its resistances.

Originally I had thought resistances would be figured independently and follow the example in the paragraph following the above quote even though that paragraph is explicitly talking about having resistance to all damage, and that what I've quoted above was actually saying that if you have the same type of resistance from different sources that you only use the highest, but those aren't the words that are there.

I think it means if you have two forms of resistances that apply to the same damage, take the higher value. Such as, if you have DR10/Bludgeoning and DR5/Slashing, you reduce 10 points of damage from a piercing attack, not 15.


Sauce987654321 wrote:
I think it means if you have two forms of resistances that apply to the same damage, take the higher value. Such as, if you have DR10/Bludgeoning and DR5/Slashing, you reduce 10 points of damage from a piercing attack, not 15.

That's not how damage resistances are phrased in this version - it's not "this amount, except if this type of damage" except in unique circumstances like resist physical 10 (except silver).

Resistances are phrased as "this type of damage is reduced by this amount" - so if a creature takes less piercing damage, but not less bludgeoning or slashing damage, that creature has "resist piercing 5" or the like.

Which is how the phrase "more than one type of resistance that would apply" is distinctly a different thing from "resistance from more than one source" or "more than one instance of the same type of resistance"


thenobledrake wrote:
Sauce987654321 wrote:
I think it means if you have two forms of resistances that apply to the same damage, take the higher value. Such as, if you have DR10/Bludgeoning and DR5/Slashing, you reduce 10 points of damage from a piercing attack, not 15.

That's not how damage resistances are phrased in this version - it's not "this amount, except if this type of damage" except in unique circumstances like resist physical 10 (except silver).

Resistances are phrased as "this type of damage is reduced by this amount" - so if a creature takes less piercing damage, but not less bludgeoning or slashing damage, that creature has "resist piercing 5" or the like.

Which is how the phrase "more than one type of resistance that would apply" is distinctly a different thing from "resistance from more than one source" or "more than one instance of the same type of resistance"

I keep getting the versions mixed up, but I still think it's intended to work like I suggested. It makes a lot more sense, in that case, because why do I suddenly stop resisting fire damage (or physical) if I have physical resistance and fire resistance at the same time.

It may just be bad wording. Is that the only thing about it that's written? Were there no examples?


Sauce987654321 wrote:
thenobledrake wrote:
Sauce987654321 wrote:
I think it means if you have two forms of resistances that apply to the same damage, take the higher value. Such as, if you have DR10/Bludgeoning and DR5/Slashing, you reduce 10 points of damage from a piercing attack, not 15.

That's not how damage resistances are phrased in this version - it's not "this amount, except if this type of damage" except in unique circumstances like resist physical 10 (except silver).

Resistances are phrased as "this type of damage is reduced by this amount" - so if a creature takes less piercing damage, but not less bludgeoning or slashing damage, that creature has "resist piercing 5" or the like.

Which is how the phrase "more than one type of resistance that would apply" is distinctly a different thing from "resistance from more than one source" or "more than one instance of the same type of resistance"

I keep getting the versions mixed up, but I still think it's intended to work like I suggested. It makes a lot more sense, in that case, because why do I suddenly stop resisting fire damage (or physical) if I have physical resistance and fire resistance at the same time.

It may just be bad wording. Is that the only thing about it that's written? Were there no examples?

There's a post from Mark Seifter that supports your viewpoint. Pretty sure that is RAI.


The only example given is how to apply "resistance all" to an attack or effect that does multiple damage types.

I would believe it were bad wording if it weren't an entire paragraph separate from and preceding the example that can not be interpreted as operating in the way the example does because of the words used and it being a waste of space if it isn't deliberately different from the paragraph and example that follow it.


Captain Morgan wrote:
There's a post from Mark Seifter that supports your viewpoint. Pretty sure that is RAI.

Where?


thenobledrake wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
There's a post from Mark Seifter that supports your viewpoint. Pretty sure that is RAI.
Where?

IDK, I don't care enough to go through his post history to find it at the moment. But he was referencing a cleric focus spells that granted resistance to all damage.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

yeah, my reading of teh quoted is if you have say a spell that gives you resistance slashing 5, and you're a barbarian who already has resistance slashing 6, you only have 6 resistance to slashing.

not that your resistance fire 3 and resistance slashing 3 don't both apply to an attack that does slashing and fire.


Captain Morgan wrote:
IDK, I don't care enough to go through his post history to find it at the moment. But he was referencing a cleric focus spells that granted resistance to all damage.

Well that doesn't really seem related from your description... since resistance to all damage is described under one paragraph and resistance to multiple types of damage is described under another paragraph.

I will try to find the post in question and see if that sheds further light on the matter.


I may have found the post you are referring to, so here's a link in hopes that you can confirm:

https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42bxf?Two-Small-Flaws-in-the-Weakness-System#2 4

If this is the post in question, then I have a problem because what Mark says in that post regarding weakness seems to directly contradict what the rule-book says on the matter: him saying "apply all the weaknesses" and the book saying "use only the highest applicable weakness value", which means him saying that resistance works the same in reverse isn't reliable either (and errata is required if his post is correct because the words in the book definitely don't intuitively lead to that ruling).

Silver Crusade

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

You should have read Mark's response to my question a few posts up in that thread, and also read the full text of Weakness which says "If the creature has more than one type of weakness that would apply to the same instance of damage, use only the highest applicable weakness value. This usually only happens when a monster is weak to both a type of physical damage and the material a weapon is made of.

Same instance refers to the exact die, so a creature with Weakness Cold Iron and Slashing getting hit with a Cold Iron Greatsword would take the highest amount from either Cold Iron or Slashing.


That reply does at least make what Mark is saying look like it could be in-line with what the rule book says... but still leaves one thing:

Rysky wrote:
Same instance refers to the exact die...

Does anywhere in the rule-book actually say that?

because if "instance of damage" means dice + modifiers of a particular type, rather than dice + modifiers tied to a particular attack roll or saving throw, that really should be spelled out somewhere nice and clear and would make these other rules work differently than I've been reading them to.

Edit to add: I just noticed that the date stamp on the posts in question are from over a year ago, so probably shouldn't be treated as definite statement of the current intent of the rules since they were made before the rules were considered final.

Silver Crusade

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

What else would "same instance" mean?


Rysky wrote:
What else would "same instance" mean?

You got hit with an attack - that's one instance.

You failed a saving throw against a spell - that's one instance. That spell does damage now (one instance) and persistent damage (one instance each time it ticks away at you).

Unfortunately, the phrase "instance of damage" only shows up in the core rule-book twice - in the two sentences that mean entirely different things depending on which meaning that phrase was intended to have.

Silver Crusade

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

If it meant the attack all together I don't think it would add

Quote:
This usually only happens when a monster is weak to both a type of physical damage and the material a weapon is made of.

And not mention any other damage riders that a PC could reasonably have on their attacks, like Energy or Alignment.

From that we can infer it's referring to the damage dice themselves, so for spells I could see it working on how the damage is distributed. If a spell did x dice of fire and acid damage then I'd say you'd only use the highest. But if it said you did x dice of fire damage and x dice of acid damage then they'd both apply I'd say (I don't know if we currently have any spells that functions like this).


If a monster w/ resistance 10 to slashing and 10 to fire gets a minor cut with a hot razor (1 slashing + 1 fire damage), I have a hard time thinking they'll get hurt. Neither damage should be hurting such a monster.
It'd also seem odd if a spell for 1 fire + 1 acid should bypass a creature with high resistances to both.
Of course, those are fairly distinct while silver & slashing pretty much overlap so perhaps should only trigger once.
And you get odd cases like he does 10 slashing + 1 fire to a guy who resists 10 slashing & 20 fire. If only the higher one (fire) activates, they take more damage than if they had only slashing resistance, yet it'd also be odd that 1 fire should hurt such a creature.

I'm also thinking of the damage from Double Slice and similar feats where it all gets pooled together. You might trigger four or more different resistances & weaknesses, even if only once each. Oh boy.

And behind all of this are the mechanics that Paizo used to calculate monster hit points and such. They, I would hope, most definitely have an answer to this, and maybe which they think they've clearly stated.
I'll be interested in that since semantics seem to be failing us.


Rysky wrote:
If it meant the attack all together I don't think it would add
Quote:
This usually only happens when a monster is weak to both a type of physical damage and the material a weapon is made of.
And not mention any other damage riders that a PC could reasonably have on their attacks, like Energy or Alignment.

That whole sentence is a problem for me because it's factually inaccurate. In the bestiary there is only one monster that has a weakness to both a damage type and a material.

It's far more common that a creature have a weakness to a material and an energy type or alignment.


Castilliano wrote:

If a monster w/ resistance 10 to slashing and 10 to fire gets a minor cut with a hot razor (1 slashing + 1 fire damage), I have a hard time thinking they'll get hurt. Neither damage should be hurting such a monster.

It'd also seem odd if a spell for 1 fire + 1 acid should bypass a creature with high resistances to both.

Whether going with how I read the rules, or how others are saying they are meant to work, these examples would result in zero damage.

My reading: 1 slashing + 1 fire, reduce the total by 10 because that's the highest value = 0 damage.
Their reading: 1 slashing reduced by 10 + 1 fire reduced by 10 = 0 damage.

Castilliano wrote:
And you get odd cases like he does 10 slashing + 1 fire to a guy who resists 10 slashing & 20 fire. If only the higher one (fire) activates, they take more damage than if they had only slashing resistance, yet it'd also be odd that 1 fire should hurt such a creature.

This is part of why I initially thought the way the rules handled multiple damage types and resistances was how they handle resistance to all damage - but there's a whole other paragraph of rules text that doesn't need to be there if it's not telling us to handle the rules in the way that makes these hypothetical weird situations possible.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
thenobledrake wrote:
Rysky wrote:
If it meant the attack all together I don't think it would add
Quote:
This usually only happens when a monster is weak to both a type of physical damage and the material a weapon is made of.
And not mention any other damage riders that a PC could reasonably have on their attacks, like Energy or Alignment.

That whole sentence is a problem for me because it's factually inaccurate. In the bestiary there is only one monster that has a weakness to both a damage type and a material.

It's far more common that a creature have a weakness to a material and an energy type or alignment.

I'm not sure how we only having one bestiary at the moment makes that rule inaccurate.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
thenobledrake wrote:
Castilliano wrote:
And you get odd cases like he does 10 slashing + 1 fire to a guy who resists 10 slashing & 20 fire. If only the higher one (fire) activates, they take more damage than if they had only slashing resistance, yet it'd also be odd that 1 fire should hurt such a creature.
This is part of why I initially thought the way the rules handled multiple damage types and resistances was how they handle resistance to all damage - but there's a whole other paragraph of rules text that doesn't need to be there if it's not telling us to handle the rules in the way that makes these hypothetical weird situations possible.

Where?


Rysky wrote:
I'm not sure how we only having one bestiary at the moment makes that rule inaccurate.

It's not about having one bestiary at the moment, it's about using the word "usually" when referring to something that is not at all usual - usually is a synonym for generally, and a thing which is true in 1 out of 400+ sample cases is not general in the slightest.

Rysky wrote:
Where?

Page 453, like we've been talking about this whole time. There's two paragraphs under resistance that tell you what to do: one says apply the resistance to each damage type done individually but is specific to resistance to all damage - and the other paragraph right before it says to only apply one type of resistance if more than one would apply (emphasis on type because it's not the word "source" so it's not talking about if you've got fire resistance from your heritage and also a magic item you decided to put on).

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
thenobledrake wrote:
Rysky wrote:
I'm not sure how we only having one bestiary at the moment makes that rule inaccurate.
It's not about having one bestiary at the moment, it's about using the word "usually" when referring to something that is not at all usual - usually is a synonym for generally, and a thing which is true in 1 out of 400+ sample cases is not general in the slightest.
Still doesn’t invalidate the rule.
Quote:
Rysky wrote:
Where?
Page 453, like we've been talking about this whole time. There's two paragraphs under resistance that tell you what to do: one says apply the resistance to each damage type done individually but is specific to resistance to all damage - and the other paragraph right before it says to only apply one type of resistance if more than one would apply (emphasis on type because it's not the word "source" so it's not talking about if you've got fire resistance from your heritage and also a magic item you decided to put on).

” 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.”

Again same instance, which ties in to Weaknesses statement on physical damage and special materials, they collaborate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Castilliano wrote:
If a monster w/ resistance 10 to slashing and 10 to fire gets a minor cut with a hot razor (1 slashing + 1 fire damage), I have a hard time thinking they'll get hurt.

They wouldn't. Neither reading of the rules would lead to that.

The question at hand seems to be more about whether attacks with multiple damage elements are treated as multiple instances of damage or not.

i.e. if I have resist 5 slashing and resist 10 fire and I get hit by an attack that does 6 slashing damage and 3 fire damage.

Do I take 1 slashing damage because the two damage types are resolved separately

or is it combined and treated as 9 slashing and fire damage and the whole thing gets negated by my fire resistance?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

The former.

Unless you have an attack that is a single die/number of combined slashing/fire damage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That's my assumption right now too.


Anybody already found out how this works for hardness?

a) Hardness only stops physical damage?
b) Hardness stops physical and energy damage, but the total amount of damage is looked at before reducing hardness?
c) Hardness stops physical and energy damage individually?

For example if an attacks deals 3 slashing and 6 acid damage, how many damage is assigned to my hardness 5 shield?

* 0 slashing and 6 acid damage?
* 4 slashing and/or acid damage?
* 0 slashing and 1 acid damage?


If I take the rules for Flaming Runes, I have this sentence:

"Fire damage dealt by this weapon (including the persistent fire damage) ignores the target’s fire resistance."

So, if this sentence is correct, it means that when you inflict damage you have to separate each type of damage and apply resistance to each of them.
The only case where the rule about applying the bigger resistance apply is if you have a part of the damage that is linked to multiple types. Like a silver Greatsword which inflicts Slashing, Silver and Weapon types at the same type, and should only trigger the highest resistance.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

@Ubertron_X

C, just like having Resistance to all damage (unless specified otherwise).

Silver Crusade

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

If I take the rules for Flaming Runes, I have this sentence:

"Fire damage dealt by this weapon (including the persistent fire damage) ignores the target’s fire resistance."

So, if this sentence is correct, it means that when you inflict damage you have to separate each type of damage and apply resistance to each of them.
The only case where the rule about applying the bigger resistance apply is if you have a part of the damage that is linked to multiple types. Like a silver Greatsword which inflicts Slashing, Silver and Weapon types at the same type, and should only trigger the highest resistance.

(just to point out, the “ignore target’s Fire Resistance” is an effect of the Greater Flaming Rune, not all Flaming Runes)


Rysky wrote:

@Ubertron_X

C, just like having Resistance to all damage (unless specified otherwise).

So in my example (an attack deals 3 slashing and 6 acid damage; shield hardness is 5) both my shield and I would receive 1 acid damage?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ubertron_X wrote:
Rysky wrote:

@Ubertron_X

C, just like having Resistance to all damage (unless specified otherwise).

So in my example (an attack deals 3 slashing and 6 acid damage; shield hardness is 5) both my shield and I would receive 1 acid damage?

"Every item has a Hardness value. Each time an item takes damage, reduce any damage the item takes by its Hardness. The rest of the damage reduces the item’s Hit Points."

If you attack with an acid sword, it's one single damage trigger. So the shield and you are supposed to take 4 damage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

No, a shield will prevent damage up to the shield hardness.

3 slashing + 6 acid will be 9 damage.

Against a Steel shield, hardness 5, both you and the shield will take 4 damage.

I am just not sure about the order of damage.

Let's say you have armor specialization and you reduce 2 from slashing.

Receiving 3 slashing and 6 acid, after a shield block, will necessarily be 2 dmg or could be from 2 to 4 depends the damage you blocked? I found no answers.


HumbleGamer wrote:

I am just not sure about the order of damage.

Let's say you have armor specialization and you reduce 2 from slashing.

Receiving 3 slashing and 6 acid, after a shield block, will necessarily be 2 dmg or could be from 2 to 4 depends the damage you blocked? I found no answers.

Thats actually a very good question.

If a creature with weakness to fire receives 5 slashing and 5 fire damage via one hit of a flaming sword and it has a steel shield raised, how many damage does it take?

Just 5 damage because it opts to block the fire damage first or up to 10 damage (any other combination)?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

You apply resistances and weaknesses before shield block. Shield block happens once you know the amount of damage you'll take.


So a Troll's steel shield will melt faster than a human's?
Maybe even to heat as little as a torch?

I'm not sure knowing the damage you'll take has to include the escalation in damage once it reaches you.


I have no other answers than : Yes.
It's done so you can know the amount of damage you take before using Shield Block, to avoid shields to be destroyed too fast.


In the appropriate section the order of precedence is immunities (1), weaknesses (2) and resistences (3).

So because this peculiar order even a resist fire spell is less effective on a Troll as it is on a regular human. A little illogical as far as I am concerned, but fully RAR.


Ubertron_X wrote:

In the appropriate section the order of precedence is immunities (1), weaknesses (2) and resistences (3).

So because this peculiar order even a resist fire spell is less effective on a Troll as it is on a regular human. A little illogical as far as I am concerned, but fully RAR.

If the Resist Fire is seen as a barrier, then it can feel illogical, but if it's a buffering of the creature's physiology, then Trolls do have to account for their Weakness.

The trouble is, a physical shield might keep the fire from ever contacting the creature. Or perhaps a clearer example, a silver weapon vs. a werewolf. Shuriken embeds in one guy's shield harming neither the shield nor him, while the shield of the werewolf gets dinged?
As RAW says, if something feels too illogical, then go with what makes sense. Except what makes sense?

Unfortunately this also ties back to how nebulous hit points are, not necessarily even representing contact. So a creature with a Weakness may have to burn more of their luck or whatnot.


Trying to phrase my prior questions differently to see if someone has an answer to it:

If you roll 33 slashing, 3 cold, and 4 good for damage on a hit with your +3 major striking greater frost holy cold-iron battleaxe against a balor, which has weaknesses cold 20, cold iron 20, and good 20, do you do a total of 60 of it's 480 hit points in damage, or 100?

If it's supposed to be 100, why does the weakness rules say "If you have more than one weakness that would apply to the same instance of damage, use only the highest applicable weakness" and include the word "usually" when saying "This usually happens only when a monster is weak to both a type of physical damage and the material a weapon is made of." if literally the only time you don't apply multiple weakness is in the hyper-rare instance (literally only 1 creature in the current bestiary) that a monster have a weakness along the lines of cold iron 15 and slashing 10 (among other things, the poor rare fungus monster).

And for resistance to multiple damage types: if resisting multiple types of damage deal by a single attack isn't treated differently from having resistance to all damage and a single attack dealing multiple types of damage, why are there two paragraphs in the book which say to do different things rather than one paragraph which combines those two existing paragraphs into the following:

"It's possible to have resistance to multiple damage types. When an effect deals damage of multiple types and you have resistance to more than one of those types, or to all damage, apply the resistance to each type of damage separately."


From what I understand:
A "bunch" of damage (it doesn't have a name, it's called damage in the game, like in "you take damage") can have multiple damage "instance".
Each damage instance can have multiple damage types.

When you attack the Balor, your bunch of damage is composed of 3 damage instances:
33 from it is Slashing, Cold Iron, Weapon damage.
4 is good damage.
3 is cold damage.

You apply the highest weakness and the highest resistance to each of them, adding 20 damage 3 times in this case.
And you don't apply the same weakness and the same resistance twice (for two-weapon fighting, for example).

This reading is, in my opinion, the most logical, and it's compatible with RAW (which isn't hyper clear on this matter).

Silver Crusade

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

You’d do 100 points of damage to the Balor, since you’re pinging all three of their weaknesses.

It’s 100 because it’s three different instances of damage (weapon damage, holy damage, and ice damage).

The only issue here seems to be your pedantism not liking how the example is laid out in the rulebook, which doesn’t affect the rules themselves.

As for two paragraphs, one dealing with resisting multiple different damages and one dealing with resisting all, it’s because those are two different things so going into detail isn’t a bad thing.


Where does that understanding of the phrase "instance of damage" come from though?

And as for my "pedantism", it has nothing to do with the layout of the example - it has everything to do with the words used.

"If you have more than one type of resistance" and "If you have the same resistance from more than one source" aren't even kind of synonymous phrases, yet I'm being told that the intention of the former phrasing is that if you have 2 different sources of fire resistance you only use the highest - which means if y'all are right then the book is wrong too.

I'm also a bit taken aback by the idea that a big-bad demon getting nailed for 60 extra damage every hit when that can easily mean more than doubling the damage of each strike isn't making anyone else on the board think "that seems too good to be true, so it must be, right?"


thenobledrake wrote:

I'm also a bit taken aback by the idea that a big-bad demon getting nailed for 60 extra damage every hit when that can easily mean more than doubling the damage of each strike isn't making anyone else on the board think "that seems too good to be true, so it must be, right?"

IIRC it's because demons especially have inflated hit point pools, triggering at least one weakness is expected, triggering all of them is being prepared.


Garretmander wrote:
IIRC it's because demons especially have inflated hit point pools, triggering at least one weakness is expected, triggering all of them is being prepared.

That is a fair point, the monster building guidelines preview does suggest giving extra HP to a creature that has a weakness but is supposed to be tough... it's not really clear how many HP worth of bonus the balor has effectively been given though, so I can't really reverse-engineer whether it has been given a few HP for one pretty easy to exploit weakness or a ton of HP for having three pretty easy to exploit weaknesses.

What I can see is that it's HP value is just barely higher than the "high" range listed in the guidelines document for a creature of its level.

Still seems like the triple-dip is in too good to be true territory though.

Silver Crusade

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

Inference from the example given.

Quote:
And as for my "pedantism", it has nothing to do with the layout of the example - it has everything to do with the words used.
And now you’re being pedantic about being called out on the pedantism.
Quote:
"If you have more than one type of resistance" and "If you have the same resistance from more than one source" aren't even kind of synonymous phrases, yet I'm being told that the intention of the former phrasing is that if you have 2 different sources of fire resistance you only use the highest - which means if y'all are right then the book is wrong too.
You’re not being told that. The former is dealing with same instances aka weapon and materials damage.
Quote:
I'm also a bit taken aback by the idea that a big-bad demon getting nailed for 60 extra damage every hit when that can easily mean more than doubling the damage of each strike isn't making anyone else on the board think "that seems too good to be true, so it must be, right?"

As Garretmander pointed out Demons have higher HP in P2 and the weapon setup you mentioned is being beyond prepared. It’s not a common weapon combo, that is specifically made for going after Demons.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
thenobledrake wrote:
Garretmander wrote:
IIRC it's because demons especially have inflated hit point pools, triggering at least one weakness is expected, triggering all of them is being prepared.

That is a fair point, the monster building guidelines preview does suggest giving extra HP to a creature that has a weakness but is supposed to be tough... it's not really clear how many HP worth of bonus the balor has effectively been given though, so I can't really reverse-engineer whether it has been given a few HP for one pretty easy to exploit weakness or a ton of HP for having three pretty easy to exploit weaknesses.

What I can see is that it's HP value is just barely higher than the "high" range listed in the guidelines document for a creature of its level.

Still seems like the triple-dip is in too good to be true territory though.

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

1 to 50 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.