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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
|
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.
|
|
If it meant the attack all together I don't think it would add
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.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If it meant the attack all together I don't think it would addThis 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.
|
|
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?
|
|
Still doesn’t invalidate the rule.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.
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. |
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?
| 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.
|
|
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)
@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?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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?@Ubertron_X
C, just like having Resistance to all damage (unless specified otherwise).
"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.
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.
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.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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).
|
|
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.
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.
|
|
Inference from the example given.
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.
"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.
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.
|
|
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?