Hi there,
I am coming a bit late to this discussion and not too frequent of forum poster, mostly lurker, but I would like to give my feedback, apologies if I misunderstand the context.
So there were two bits to this discussion in relation to glimpse of redemption?
First bit was does persistent damage allow you to trigger it. It seems that this was answered, but it is relevant to the part it looks like is being discussed here at the end of it, so want to make sure it is clear.
"Trigger: An enemy damages your ally, and both are within 15 ft of you"
So this requires a couple definitions already said and as such a repeat. Attack and Persistent damage are both defined separately in the rules with persistent damage being damage from a condition, not from the attack itself. So no, there is no justification for it.
This is important for it because it applies to what I believe the discussion is, unless I am wrong, the debate as to whether the resistance would apply to persistent damage.
No.
The resistance is very specific. It is it is applied to "the triggering damage". So if it is already concluded that persistent damage cannot trigger, then it is not trigger damage because it is not attack damage.
The sidebar on 621 does not say that the persistent is part of the attack. What it says is that an effect that applies both immediate and persistent. The attack does deal damage, and apply a condition. But it only applies the effect, it does not deal the effect damage itself.
To help make it more visual, we can use word substitution. Replace the "triggering damage" with the definition of the trigger itself:
"The ally gains resistance to all damage against <the enemy damage to your ally> equal to 2+ your level."
At this point, the effect has run it's course and ends. The next damage is condition damage, not the <enemy damage to your ally>.
---
Not enough justification?
---
Lets look at the roleplay reasoning. The glimpse of redemption roleplay explaination is as follows:
"Your foe hesitates under the weight of sin as visions of redemption play in their mind's eye. The FOE must choose one of the following options:"
So consider that. If you regret lighting something on fire, but still lit it on fire.... would it burn slower just cause you regretted it? The poison be weaker? I mean you could sorta roleplay a bleeding cut wouldn't be so bad but...
---
BUT!
---
Keep in mind the DM has discretion as to players remedying persistent damage as well as the rules read that if the triggering effect does no damage, then there will not be any persistent damage. So say you have a sword that does fire damage with persistence, if the redemption causes the fire damage to be negated then there will not be the persistent fire damage.
Well, again, 100 posts and some chat with peeps outside of game and this is how I would rule if I was GMing. For me it seems pretty direct with the confusion stemming from a general clarification being used to override specific wording.
Course could have misunderstood the whole discussion too?
Resistance applies to persistent damage, p621
When you have resistance to “all damage”, it applies separately to each component of the attack’s damage block, p453
We’ve already covered this.
To the initial question phrased as “can CR affect persistent damage already dealt” the answer seems to be no - you would need to meet the requirement and use the reaction when the damage is dealt by the attack, which appears to be only at the attack.
If you do CR on the attack, the result is that the resistance applies to the initial damage and the persistent damage separately. RAW 621 very clearly demonstrates this.
Block 621 only states that if you have a resistance and something has both an instant and persistent damage, it applies to both separately.
That is completely separate and irrelevant from the champion's ability. What matters with the ability is it specifies specifically it only applies to the "trigger's damage". The trigger's damage being the damage that occurs on weapon contact.
The persistent is not trigger damage because you cannot trigger the reaction with PD nor does it occur at the time of trigger. So by the time a player takes the persistent damage, there is no more resistance to be had because the resistance is solely the enemy not hitting as hard. From the description itself. It is not a barrier or anything. It is a mind affecting influence on the foe. It is an instantaneous, not persistent effect.
Course can I make sure I understand what you mean when you say CR? I am assuming we are talking about champion reaction still?
Edit: Play situation breakdown.
Enemy deals attack, does damage of 1d6P and 1d6F Player gets condition of 1d6 f, BUT!!! and this is where it is critical! Has not received damage from it!
As such, the champion can trigger reaction because an ally has received 1d6P and 1d6F since that is what triggered being able to use the reaction.
Foe uses the resistance one and is staggered. The ability is no longer relevant because it has been applied to trigger damage rules as written.
621 has no relevance here because the resistance is over before there is any persistent damage applied and the persistent damage is not the as worded trigger damage.
Craz wrote: Block 621 only states that if you have a resistance and something has both an instant and persistent damage, it applies to both separately.
That is completely separate and irrelevant from the champion's ability. What matters with the ability is it specifies specifically it only applies to the "trigger's damage". The trigger's damage being the damage that occurs on weapon contact.
The persistent is not trigger damage because you cannot trigger the reaction with PD nor does it occur at the time of trigger. So by the time a player takes the persistent damage, there is no more resistance to be had because the resistance is solely the enemy not hitting as hard. From the description itself. It is not a barrier or anything. It is a mind affecting influence on the foe. It is an instantaneous, not persistent effect.
Course can I make sure I understand what you mean when you say CR? I am assuming we are talking about champion reaction still?
Edit: Play situation breakdown.
Enemy deals attack, does damage of 1d6P and 1d6F Player gets condition of 1d6 f, BUT!!! and this is where it is critical! Has not received damage from it!
As such, the champion can trigger reaction because an ally has received 1d6P and 1d6F since that is what triggered being able to use the reaction.
Foe uses the resistance one and is staggered. The ability is no longer relevant because it has been applied to trigger damage rules as written.
621 has no relevance here because the resistance is over before there is any persistent damage applied and the persistent damage is not the as worded trigger damage.
That would be nice to see clarified. What counts as triggering damage?
I suggest you read through the thread as we have been through all of this.
CR gives resistance to “all damage” which is specific to p453. Resistance applies to persistent damage as per p621. That is RAW.
These rules are very clearly stated. CR is an instantaneous effect, therefore it is permanent and does not have a time limit. When you start arguing that damage is not damage, or all damage doesn’t include some damage, then you are in RAI territory.
@Craz
There are 2 schools of thought here.
One school of thought is that the resistance is applied the moment the "damage" is registered and because because of that the DR from CR is believed to be viable versus any persistent damage that comes with the initial damage and thus also permanent in regards to the persistent damage.
The other school of thought is that that the resistence is instead just instantaneously applied to the initial damage and because it has no duration listed will be gone when the persistent damage hits later on.
You and I are in the later camp, especially when it comes to interpreting the rules text on page 621 ("apply to both" vs "apply separately"), however I can see enough arguments for either side to call this topic worthy of official clarification.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Liegence wrote: Question: Does persistent damage inflicted by an enemy trigger your Champion reaction?
Example situation: enemy caster within 15 feet hits ally within 15 feet with acid arrow (assume said enemy doesn’t move). Do I get Champ reaction on spell? Then, I go and get reaction back and I do my thing but keep enemy and ally within 15 feet. Then ally goes, stays in reaction range, and at end of his turn takes persistent acid damage. Does my Champion reaction trigger again?
No.
Persistent Damage is a condition, applied to the target from an enemy. It is the Persistent Damage condition on the player doing the damage, not the enemy. Therefore, no reaction takes place.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I think if Persistent Damage was called anything else we wouldn't even be having this conversation. It seems to literally just spawn from the word "Damage" being part of the condition. It is called this so they didn't have to print out dozens of conditions that do the same thing for different damage types.
I.E it is more efficient to print fire persistant damage or acid persistent damage than it is to have the Burning and Corroding conditions that do identical things apart from the damage trait.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
liegence wrote: I suggest you read through the thread as we have been through all of this.
CR gives resistance to “all damage” which is specific to p453. Resistance applies to persistent damage as per p621. That is RAW.
These rules are very clearly stated. CR is an instantaneous effect, therefore it is permanent and does not have a time limit. When you start arguing that damage is not damage, or all damage doesn’t include some damage, then you are in RAI territory.
That is not RAW
"CR gives resistance to 'all damage'"
At this point, the rules are already incorrect if this is how it is being applied.
It is not:
Resistance 2+L/-
It is
Resistance 2+L/- VS. TRIGGER
That is the first and most essential distinction that matters. That is RAW states what damage the resistance is applied to. 453 only explains what happens when a specific attack deals multiple damage types.
621 only is about how to apply it if a player is taking both physical and persistent from an attack because most persistent is a condition of an attack. It does not in any way say if you are hit by an attack you will gain resistance to the persistent. It only says that if you have a resistance when the persistent damage is received, you also resist that.
So both pages are not relevant vs CR because the persistent damage is not part of the attack. The attack is as below:
[Damage physical] + [Damage Energy] + Condition
Gameplay: Enemy hits, does above damage. Trigger conditions are met because an enemy [Damage Physical] + [Damage Energy] This is RAW. Trigger is "An Enemy deals attack damage" Damage is specified in rules. What an attack is, is also specified. Damage applied from a condition is not attack damage. An ability that gives condition IS an attack, but there is no damage from the attack itself.
It only applies a condition.
TRIGGER AS DEFINED:
[physical damage]+[energy damage] from the enemy ability used.
ABILITY:
Resistance to all VS trigger damage. Trigger damage is above.
And it ends right at this point. The conditions of the ability have been met. The other stuff being referenced is reverse application of rules. Those are "IF" situations when applicable. But they are not applicable. Using 621 you are bypassing RAW, not following because you are using a rule to try and negate a rule.
621 DOES NOT say if you take a resistance to an attacks damage you automatically gain resistance to the persistent damage. It ONLY says that if you have a resistance, you can apply it to both damages separately.
But you do not have a resistance when you take the persistent.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Yeah, this is pretty cut and dry guys.
The Reaction reduces the damage that is dealt by the attack. The Attack deals damage and applies a Condition, the Reaction reduces the damage taken from that Attack, it doesn't interact with the Condition at all.
Time passes...
The Condition is triggered on the creature's turn, well after the effects of the Reaction have been fully resolved. Persistent damage is rolled or rerolled and applied to the Character, no Resistance or Damage Reduction is applied at all.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Just going to point out that while yes, resistances do apply to persistent damage, they apply at the point in time that the persistent damage "ticks" not when the condition is gained.
If you had 1 round of resist fire (5) left, and got set on fire for 2d6 fire damage, you'd still have "2d6 persistent fire damage" as a condition. Just that the first time you rolled it, you'd subtract 5, then the fire resist would wear off, and next round you'd take the full 2d6.
I don't think anyone would argue that it works differently than that.
Champion's "against the triggering damage" works the same way, except its duration borders on "instantaneous" and the reduction never gets applied to the persistent damage at all.
I'll also say that Krispy has noted, several times, how difficult it is to do any significant harm to her Champion. Making it so the reaction pretty much turns off Persistent Damage is probably a substantial factor in that.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Malk_Content wrote: I'll also say that Krispy has noted, several times, how difficult it is to do any significant harm to her Champion. Making it so the reaction pretty much turns off Persistent Damage is probably a substantial factor in that. Nope, barely came up.
By the time persistent damage came up alot as riders on attacks, most of the PCs had at least one relevant resistance on ring or armor that made a lot of persistent damage a non-issue in general - except for one late fight, where the Fighter was drunk on overconfidence, and charged way ahead of the Champion anyway.
What did come up regularly is the fact that Champion Reactions apply to every single different type of damage independently, via Resist All damage, explicitly.
It does not say, "Except for Persistent damage", and it does not list a duration.
Of note: Despite all this discussion, there is one aspect of 621 that does apply. Specifically if all damage from an attack that is related to the persistent damage, then the persistent damage condition does not trigger.
So if the d6 of fire damage is 2 from the attack, well the resistance nullifies all the fire damage. As such no persistent fire damage condition is applied.
Quote: What did come up regularly is the fact that Champion Reactions apply to every single different type of damage independently, via Resist All damage, explicitly.
It does not say, "Except for Persistent damage", and it does not list a duration
It doesnt say all damage.
It says "all damage to TRIGGER DAMAGE" You are only applying part of the rule out of context.
So correct, it doesnt have a duration. Technically it never ends. But the damage it applies to only occurs once. The persistent is not part of the conditional damage to which the resistance applies to.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Craz wrote: Of note: Despite all this discussion, there is one aspect of 621 that does apply. Specifically if all damage from an attack that is related to the persistent damage, then the persistent damage condition does not trigger.
So if the d6 of fire damage is 2 from the attack, well the resistance nullifies all the fire damage. As such no persistent fire damage condition is applied.
Quote: What did come up regularly is the fact that Champion Reactions apply to every single different type of damage independently, via Resist All damage, explicitly.
It does not say, "Except for Persistent damage", and it does not list a duration
It doesnt say all damage.
It says "all damage to TRIGGER DAMAGE" You are only applying part of the rule out of context.
So correct, it doesnt have a duration. Technically it never ends. But the damage it applies to only occurs once. The persistent is not part of the conditional damage to which the resistance applies to.
Persistent damage is damage, and it was applied as part of the triggering damage - 2d12+d6 fire + d6 persistent fire damage as an example, 3 types of damage are being dealt by the attack.
While the resolution and application of persistent damage is delayed, that damage was part of the triggering damage just like any second or third damage types that arent persistent were.
Everyone saying that persistent damage isn't damage and is just a condition is making the completely (as of now) unsubstantiated assumption that it cannot count as both damage and a condition.
Find me anything at all in the core rules that says it can't count as both.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Krispy, the part being missed is there are not three parts of damage. There are two aspects of damage and a condition applied at the time of trigger. No damage occurs from the persistent. It is [Physical damage] + [Energy damage] + [Condition]
This is verifiable RAW which explicitly state that persistent damage is a condition. The condition is applying damage, not the one who caused said condition. This is why an ability that only causes a condition cannot trigger the spell because no attack damage has occured.
The damage from the persistent only occurs at the end of the affected party's turn, not at the time of the trigger which is why resistance cannot be applied to it. It has not happened to be part of the trigger to be counted with the RAW explicit definition of what the resistance applies to, specifically the trigger damage which does not include the persistent since the persistent has not done any damage.
It isn't saying persistent damage isn't damage, but it is not attack damage.
If a bull rush is used to push somebody from a bridge, the fall damage is not attack damage. Same with persistent damage. You are not being hit with the persistent damage. You have a condition, such as you have been lit on fire. You are not receiving an attack, you are burning.
Such as if I use a match to light a fire, I am not continuing to add matches to keep it burning. When an attack is done that deals a condition damage, you are burned by that which ignites it, but not the fire which doesnt yet exist. It just has started, but has not actually harmed you yet.
KrispyXIV wrote: Craz wrote: Of note: Despite all this discussion, there is one aspect of 621 that does apply. Specifically if all damage from an attack that is related to the persistent damage, then the persistent damage condition does not trigger.
So if the d6 of fire damage is 2 from the attack, well the resistance nullifies all the fire damage. As such no persistent fire damage condition is applied.
Quote: What did come up regularly is the fact that Champion Reactions apply to every single different type of damage independently, via Resist All damage, explicitly.
It does not say, "Except for Persistent damage", and it does not list a duration
It doesnt say all damage.
It says "all damage to TRIGGER DAMAGE" You are only applying part of the rule out of context.
So correct, it doesnt have a duration. Technically it never ends. But the damage it applies to only occurs once. The persistent is not part of the conditional damage to which the resistance applies to.
Persistent damage is damage, and it was applied as part of the triggering damage - 2d12+d6 fire + d6 persistent fire damage as an example, 3 types of damage are being dealt by the attack.
While the resolution and application of persistent damage is delayed, that damage was part of the triggering damage just like any second or third damage types that arent persistent were.
Everyone saying that persistent damage isn't damage and is just a condition is making the completely (as of now) unsubstantiated assumption that it cannot count as both damage and a condition.
Find me anything at all in the core rules that says it can't count as both. A few things.
1. Persistent Damage does not tick right away, meaning the extra D6 does not count for resistances against a Champion's reaction, since it's not taking place, nor is it a part of the triggering damage.
2. Two sources of damage of the same type (such as 1D6 Slashing from a sword and 1D4 slashing from Serrating) count as the same source for the purposes of resistance, because it all adds into the same sum when calculating total damage taken.
3. Persistent Damage is still caused by a condition, which is damage not caused directly by the enemy. The trigger for any of these reactions is that the enemy must damage them, not to simply have the ally take damage while an enemy is in range.
4. Nobody is saying Persistent Damage isn't damage. It's just damage not directly caused by an enemy, but instead caused by a condition, therefore the reaction's trigger isn't being met, because it must be the enemy dealing the damage, not the condition.
Malk_Content wrote: I'll also say that Krispy has noted, several times, how difficult it is to do any significant harm to her Champion. Making it so the reaction pretty much turns off Persistent Damage is probably a substantial factor in that. The Champion's Reaction doesn't work on the Champion, so that wouldn't be the reason Krispy did not take damage.
I would love to see what the designers think and what was intended. My table has not been applying the Champion's Reaction to persistent damage because it is not triggered at the time of the attack. The word triggering damage is one of those words that could use clarification. Triggering implies the immediate damage, not damage from an applied condition like burning or bleeding.
If we're going by RAW, if the enemy moves outside of 15 feet the resistance would not apply. That is a direct RAW reading. The enemy is outside of the 15 foot range, resistance ends period. Enemy moves back within 15 feet and resistance applies to Champion's reaction.
That's a very RAW reading. If we're going by RAW, we have to apply everything written down. It gets kind of annoying and complicated to do that.
If someone was trying to go by RAW with me, I would as a DM have the target run out of the 15 foot range after applying the persistent damage and make sure player knew RAW was being applied and they were no longer in the 15 foot range to apply their resistance. A DM and player could play some real stupid games with each other at a table. That's never good when a rule is written to allow this.
I thought it is pretty clear. "Triggering Damage" the trigger is "An enemy damages your ally" Therefore the triggering damage is the damage done to the ally. It isn't when an enemy attacks. It is when they deal damage. Meaning damage dice are rolled. So the resistance applies to those rolls because those rolls are the trigger.
And persistent damage is not an enemy doing damage. It is a condition the enemy applied, but is not the enemy doing it.
That is the part that is making me get confused with this discussion. The RAW is explicit that the damage from persistent is as a result of a condition directly.
The trigger occurs at the moment the attack is applied. Therefore you cannot move out of the 15 range.
Edit: Markus Reese above is me. I forgot to set Craz to default. My bad.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Per the order of events presented earlier in the thread, persistent damage is dealt in step 1 of resolving damage, and then its effect is delayed. It still was dealt at the same time as the rest of the damage.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I cannot find anywhere that it says you roll persistent damage at the time it is applied.
"PERSISTENT DAMAGE"
Persistent damage comes from effects like acid, being on fire, or many other situations. It appears as "X persistent [type] damage," where "X" is the the amount of damage dealt and "[type]" is the damage type.Instead of taking persistent damage immediately, you take it at the end of each of your turns as long as you have the condition, rolling any damage dice anew each time. After you take persistent damage,roll a DC 15 flat check to see if you recover from the persistent damage. If you succeed, the condition ends.
RAW
"INSTEAD OF TAKING PERSISTENT DAMAGE IMMEDIATELY"
It does not happen when you receive the condition. Rolling persistent damage when the condition applied is incorrect. You do not take the damage immediately, only on the end of your turn. Therefore you will never have persistent damage at the time of trigger.
Edit: Above was also from 621. However in rules about damage, it also has a section, page 451:
"PERSISTENT DAMAGE"
Persistent damage is a condition that causes damage to recur beyond the original effect. Unlike with normal damage, when you are subject to persistent damage, you don't take it right away. Instead, you take the specified damage at the end of your turns, after which you attempt a DC 15 flat check to see if oyu recover from the persistent damage. See conditions Appendix on pages 618-6234 for the complete rules regarding the persistent damage condition.
So now not just once, but twice it says that persistent damage does not occur at the time of the attack.
Unfortunately, I am not sure what else to say on the subject. It is defined that persistent damage is a condition, not an attack. It is defined that the CR only applies to enemy attack damage. So already we have persistent damage is not a trigger in the CR. It is specific that the resistance only applies to that damage that triggered the reaction. It is clear that there is no damage from persistent damage when the enemy makes the attack as it only occurs on your turn.
Beyond this, I have no idea how they could make it clearer outside of writing it out directly that it doesnt apply. There is no rule stating that it would apply to it either. The closest is saying that persistent damage is also subject to resistances, but that is only relevant if it is deemed that there is a resistance in the first place, but the rules are pretty clear that the CR would not apply to the persistent damage in that it specifically states that it isn't a resistance the player gets, it is only a resistance that is applied to the damage itself.
KrispyXIV wrote: Per the order of events presented earlier in the thread, persistent damage is dealt in step 1 of resolving damage, and then its effect is delayed. It still was dealt at the same time as the rest of the damage. Nope. Persistent damage doesn't even interact with the steps for resolving damage until the end of the victim's turn. In the same way that "and poison" or "and (*insert creature ability*)" doesn't interact with those steps at the same time (or at all in many cases like Grab).
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Craz wrote: I cannot find anywhere that it says you roll persistent damage at the time it is applied.
"PERSISTENT DAMAGE"
Persistent damage comes from effects like acid, being on fire, or many other situations. It appears as "X persistent [type] damage," where "X" is the the amount of damage dealt and "[type]" is the damage type.Instead of taking persistent damage immediately, you take it at the end of each of your turns as long as you have the condition, rolling any damage dice anew each time. After you take persistent damage,roll a DC 15 flat check to see if you recover from the persistent damage. If you succeed, the condition ends.
RAW
"INSTEAD OF TAKING PERSISTENT DAMAGE IMMEDIATELY"
It does not happen when you receive the condition. Rolling persistent damage when the condition applied is incorrect. You do not take the damage immediately, only on the end of your turn. Therefore you will never have persistent damage at the time of trigger.
What does it matter when its rolled or when you reduce your hit points? Its part of the initial resolution of damage - its being resolved at the same time as the champion reaction - and the champions reaction is still in effect when you do roll damage later.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Alyran wrote: KrispyXIV wrote: Per the order of events presented earlier in the thread, persistent damage is dealt in step 1 of resolving damage, and then its effect is delayed. It still was dealt at the same time as the rest of the damage. Nope. Persistent damage doesn't even interact with the steps for resolving damage until the end of the victim's turn. In the same way that "and poison" or "and (*insert creature ability*)" doesn't interact with those steps at the same time (or at all in many cases like Grab). Its listed under the first step of damage resolution on page 451. Its absolutely part of that process.
Quote: Its listed under the first step of damage resolution on page 451. Its absolutely part of that process. Can you please specify exactly what is said on 451?
The only discussion on 451 persistence was what I edit added to my earlier post where it explicitly says the damage does not occur immediately. Nowhere does it say that you roll and apply the persistent damage at the time of the attack. In fact it tells you NOT to do that.
Quote: What does it matter when its rolled or when you reduce your hit points? Its part of the initial resolution of damage - its being resolved at the same time as the champion reaction - and the champions reaction is still in effect when you do roll damage later. What does it matter? That is what we are trying to explain. When it is rolled is entirely what matters because the damage being dealt is the trigger, and the damage done when the reaction is triggers is the only thing that you have a resistance to. So if the damage is not done then and not from the enemy directly, then you have no CR effect to give resistance.
The resolution is the application of the condition, NOT application of damage.
So yeah, the champions reaction is "in effect" in that it is still resisting the damage dealt when the attack was made. But persistent damage is not part of that because the condition is doing a damage. Not an attack. Persistent damage is explicit in that it is condition damage, not attack damage.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Craz wrote: Not an attack. Persistent damage is explicit in that it is condition damage, not attack damage. Which is utterly, completely irrelevant. Champions Reaction is not tied to attacks.
It is tied to when an enemy damages an ally, which is when you go to step 1 - and on page 451, inside the detailed breakdown of step 1, it tells you to delay taking any involved persistent damage until later.
Champions Reaction triggers after this, and should apply to all damage determined in steps 1 and 2 including the already dealt but pending being taken persistent damage.
KrispyXIV wrote: Alyran wrote: KrispyXIV wrote: Per the order of events presented earlier in the thread, persistent damage is dealt in step 1 of resolving damage, and then its effect is delayed. It still was dealt at the same time as the rest of the damage. Nope. Persistent damage doesn't even interact with the steps for resolving damage until the end of the victim's turn. In the same way that "and poison" or "and (*insert creature ability*)" doesn't interact with those steps at the same time (or at all in many cases like Grab). Its listed under the first step of damage resolution on page 451. Its absolutely part of that process. It IS listed under step 1 explicitly telling you that it isn't included at the time of regular damage.
Quote: Which is utterly, completely irrelevant. Champions Reaction is not tied to attacks.
It is tied to when an enemy damages an ally, which is when you go to step 1 - and on page 451, inside the detailed breakdown of step 1, it tells you to delay taking any involved persistent damage until later.
Champions Reaction triggers after this, and should apply to all damage determined in steps 1 and 2 including the already dealt but pending being taken persistent damage.
Step 1 tells you NOT to take damage from persistent damage at this time as previously quoted. You do not take it immediately.
"Trigger: An enemy damages your ally"
An enemy can only damage an ally when it makes an attack. Persistent damage is not the enemy doing the damage. It is, and again, RAW "Persistent damage is a condition that causes damage" So taken straight literally, it is not the enemy.
I only say attack so I do not have to write out "when an enemy damages an ally" every time.
So by citing the damage resolution steps, the trigger is completed before persistent damage ever occurs.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Craz wrote: Quote: Which is utterly, completely irrelevant. Champions Reaction is not tied to attacks.
It is tied to when an enemy damages an ally, which is when you go to step 1 - and on page 451, inside the detailed breakdown of step 1, it tells you to delay taking any involved persistent damage until later.
Champions Reaction triggers after this, and should apply to all damage determined in steps 1 and 2 including the already dealt but pending being taken persistent damage.
Step 1 tells you NOT to take damage from persistent damage at this time! We quoted it for you. You do not take it immediately.
"Trigger: An enemy damages your ally"
An enemy can only damage an ally when it makes an attack. Persistent damage is not the enemy doing the damage. It is, and again, RAW "Persistent damage is a condition that causes damage" So taken straight literally, it is not the enemy.
I only say attack so I do not have to write out "when an enemy damages an ally" every time.
So by citing the damage resolution steps, the trigger is completed before persistent damage ever occurs. Uh, enemies can absolutely deal damage without attacks. They can deal damage without actions. Breath Weapons and similar arent tagged as attacks, and lots of monsters have auras that deal damage.
You're confusing "damaging an ally" with that ally "taking damage". The enemy has damaged your ally the moment you start the steps for damage resolution - triggering Champion Reaction. This has to be true, or it doesn't have any effect at all.
Your ally has been "damaged" by persistent damage right then as well - they just don't take that damage until later.
Since Champion Reaction Resistance isn't timed, its still in effect and still reduces the damage.
That is why it is phrases as "an enemy damages an ally" So magic, breath weapons or GM discretion all give you option to trigger. Ditto for anything aura if it is the enemy applying it. But if say is an object, then it isn't the enemy applying the area of effect.
And yes, the "damaging an ally" is the moment damage starts. So enemy damages an ally means when the enemy is the source of the damage resolution.
However the enemy is not dealing the persistent damage. It is a condition. As such the persistent damage does not meet the trigger requirement. When persistent damage is done, it is the condition, not the enemy which causes said damage. The enemy only caused the condition.
The timing isn't a factor since it is specific to the damage caused by the enemy.
-----------
So the summary question and answer is:
"Is persistent damage enemy damage?"
No. Persistent damage is damage that occurs from have a condition. Because the CR only applies to damage from an enemy, it will not apply to the persistent damage because it is not damage from an enemy.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Craz wrote:
-----------
So the summary question and answer is:
"Is persistent damage enemy damage?"
No. Persistent damage is damage that occurs from have a condition. Because the CR only applies to damage from an enemy, it will not apply to the persistent damage because it is not damage from an enemy.
Are you official somehow?
Because this answer ignores the very real possibility that persistent damage is both damage from an enemy, AND condition damage. Theres not actually any contradiction between those two things.
Nope, not official, just over 25 years of TTRPG. Still got my yellow spine ADND books.
It ignores that possibility because that is using indirect relation. By indirect relation I can have it so that the enemy pulling a lever causing a room to fill with water, that the drowning damage is enemy damage because the enemy caused the room to fill with water.
It isn't contradition, but still must maintain a chain of process.
Because A<->B and B<->C, it does not mean that A<->C
Enemy caused condition which caused damage. Part of following rules as written is that things must be taken directly. Directly, the damage is a condition. All conditions are resolved independently. Beyond this, it is no longer RAW.
It is as you said "The possibility of condition damage being enemy damage" but this is not in the rules. This is a possibility. But RAW? An enemy applies a condition, a condition applies damage. This is the direct answer. Beyond that it is supposition and interpretation meaning not RAW.
So the debate isn't so much whether or not RAW says it IS applicable to persistent damage. There is nothing in the rules that says it is. Instead what is being asked for is if there is any rule that says it is not applied.
This is how our perspectives change. You will never have the rules be able to cover and account for everything. There will always be ways to connect dots. But if looking for a RAW answer? Then need to not connect dots and narrow it down to be as direct as possible. Outside of that, it is the GM's discretion as to how it applies.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Squiggit wrote: I didn't damage you, the sword I'm holding did.
All I did was swing it.
This. A million times this.
If the persistent damage is a direct result of an interaction, action, or effect of an enemy - that enemy has damaged you when that interaction, action or effect occurred.
No, that is not how persistent damage works. Because for example burning. It is because you are on fire. The enemy does not have control or direction on it at all. That is difference. The sword without the enemy holding, the spell without the caster, the breath weapon without the dragon does not exist if the wielder is not there.
Conditions however function and exist regardless of the enemy's actions. That is the defining difference.
However if that is the definition that the GM went with at a table I was playing? Every trap, anything which only exists because an enemy implemented it, I would be applying the reaction to.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
KrispyXIV wrote: Its part of the initial resolution of damage - its being resolved at the same time as the champion reaction No, its not.
Page 451 wrote: Persistent Damage
Persistent damage is a condition that causes damage to recur
beyond the original effect. Unlike with normal damage,
when you are subject to persistent damage, you don’t take
it right away. Instead, you take the specified damage at the
end of your turns, after which you attempt a DC 15 flat
check to see if you recover from the persistent damage.
See the Conditions Appendix on pages 618–623 for the
complete rules regarding the persistent damage condition.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Craz wrote: No, that is not how persistent damage works. Because for example burning. It is because you are on fire. The enemy does not have control or direction on it at all. That is difference. The sword without the enemy holding, the spell without the caster, the breath weapon without the dragon does not exist if the wielder is not there.
Conditions however function and exist regardless of the enemy's actions. That is the defining difference.
This is where you're filling in rules that arent written anywhere.
Its clearly part of the enemies damage profile for their attack, it clearly starts the damage resolution process, and that process proceeds in a way that then imposes a condition and delays the persistent damage part of that profile.
None of that divorces the persistent damage from that enemy.
Its still damage dealt by that enemy unless something says it isn't, its just resolved in a specific way based on the type of damage.
It is divorced from it the moment the core rule book defined persistent damage as a condition. The steps regarding application of damage specify it as a condition as well.
SPECIFIC OVERRIDES GENERAL
"A core principle of Pathfinder is that Specific rules override general runs. If two rules conflict, the more specific one takes precendence. If there's still ambiguity, the GM determines which rule to use."
AMBIGUOUS RULES
"Sometimes a rule could be interpreted multiple ways. If one version is too good to be true, it probably is. If a rule seems to have wording with problematic repercussions or doesnt work as intended, work with your group to find a good solution, rather than just playing with the rule as printed"
In the case of bringing issue to a forum, the forum itself is your community. We, as a community have presented many situations that separate the CR from the persistent damage with direct usage of RAW.
At this time, I cannot present more because I am not a GM for purposes of this discussion. It is up to you, and your table to decide how you wish to use this information. Not everything can have a direct answer and will always be questions.
Any further discussion will just be circular for me, so to everybody else? I can only stand by my previous statements.
Considering the RAW, combined with the roleplay descriptor of what and how the CR's function, my only closing statement is that there is significantly more that would rule it does not apply than it does. That it does is based on non written interpretation, there is nothing written that states it would receive it.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Craz wrote: It is divorced from it the moment the core rule book defined persistent damage as a condition. The steps regarding application of damage specify it as a condition as well.
SPECIFIC OVERRIDES GENERAL
"A core principle of Pathfinder is that Specific rules override general runs. If two rules conflict, the more specific one takes precendence. If there's still ambiguity, the GM determines which rule to use."
AMBIGUOUS RULES
"Sometimes a rule could be interpreted multiple ways. If one version is too good to be true, it probably is. If a rule seems to have wording with problematic repercussions or doesnt work as intended, work with your group to find a good solution, rather than just playing with the rule as printed"
There is no conflict here though. Theres no reason it can't be enemy damage and a condition. Theres no specific vs general here - simply apply all rules. Thats a restriction that is not currently supported in the rules.
Nor is it "too good to be true" - its a minor benefit on top of an already fantastically powerful ability that explicitly applies repeatedly for each damage type. Knowing that the reaction applies to every other damage type, it seems illogical to me to create exceptions without being instructed to do so.
In fact, the idea that an enemy is not responsible for persistent damage they deal does immediately and dramatically trigger the "problematic repurcussions" clause under Ambiguous Rules for me. That feels like an absurd interpretation, for the whole "it wasn't me, it was the sword" contention.
I respect the right for each GM to determine how to run this - I just dont see any issue running it straight from the book, and applying all rules without significant interpretation.
It isn't a matter of responsibility, it is a matter of control.
From a pure roleplay perspective, it isn't possible for the CR to affect persistent damage because the CR itself is a mind affecting ability to affect the enemy hitting the ally. They have no control over the persistent damage.
Edit: Breakdown of how each of the CRs function:
Retributive strike: "You protect an ally from a foe" Therefore the hit does not hit as hard, but still lights on fire. Partially blocking an attack does not mean they still arent on fire, they still were ignited, etc.
Glimpse of Redemption: Your foe hesitates under the weight of sin
Liberating step: You free an ally from restraint
In all three cases, the CR is acting on the action itself that causes the damage, not the damage.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Craz wrote: It isn't a matter of responsibility, it is a matter of control.
From a pure roleplay perspective, it isn't possible for the CR to affect persistent damage because the CR itself is a mind affecting ability to affect the enemy hitting the ally. They have no control over the persistent damage.
Uh... I must be missing something. None of the Champion Reaction variants appear to be mind affecting, or incapable of affecting any target based on their description.
The resistance granted is in no way mundane or "limited", and is clearly supernatural.
Theres absolutely no reason it can't "dull" persistent damage. Its "magic".
Craz wrote: In all three cases, the CR is acting on the action itself that causes the damage, not the damage. This is explicitly untrue. The resistance granted is to the triggering damage, and is completely uncaring of the sources awareness or choices, except in the case of Glimpse which works even on mindless creatures. It applies if the enemy doesn't even know its damaged you (lets say you're invisible and you walked into an aura that deals damage).
Sorry, I edited to add the descriptions above of what occurs.
Retributive strike states protect, then attack. Glimpse of redemption says it functions by making the foe not hit as hard. Liberating step says it is a boost.
But we can look further into all three CRs.
We look at the traits. It only has the "champion" trait. It does not have the magical trait.
Champion (Trait): This indicates abilities from the champion class.
So if we go strict RAW, it in fact cannot be considered a magical effect because it does not have the "magical" or a spell class trait.
To go nearby in the PHB, we can look at the cleric. Almost all the cleric feats and abilities only say cleric. Example? Healing hands. But healing hands is not stand alone anymore, it is a modifier to the spell. This is all first level choices.
But if you look into the second level, you will see for example with communal healing "healing" "positive" or sap life "Healing" which designate their magical school.
As per page 297,
MAGICAL SCHOOLS
"All spells, all magic items, and most other magical effects fall into one of the eight schools of magic. These schools broadly define what the magic is capable of. Every spell has the trait corresponding to its school. Some spellcasters, like specialist wizards, have a particular acument with a certain school of magic."
So actually, in terms of RAW? The CR is a non magical ability despite it's having range because it does not have a magical school trait.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Craz wrote:
So actually, in terms of RAW? The CR is a non magical ability despite it's having range because it does not have a magical school trait.
Hence referring to them as supernatural, and "magic".
Glimpse of Redemption can cause an Ooze to deal less damage (even with its description!) Or allow a dragon to cause no damage to a single target at the very heart of his breath weapon.
These are clearly extremely powerful effects operating outside the bounds of normalcy, with no inherent restrictions or limits. Theyre also not technically magic, theyre just reality altering powerful.
Reducing ongoing fire damage is well within the range of reasonable for roleplaying purposes.
This is actually a pretty good lead into hopefully coming to an agreeable decision.
One of the hardest traps a player/GM can fall into is being so focused on rule as written, that they will overlook rule as intended.
Quote: Hence referring to them as supernatural, and "magic" This here is a prime example of it. If we focused solely and devotedly on following rules as written, this could never be considered because even supernatural abilities all have a magic school listed. I am flipping through the beastiary right now, and cannot find any supernatural ability without a school. Unfortunately, there is absolutely no part of the champion's descriptions that lets these reactions be considered magical.
But we do, because from a roleplay perspective, it makes sense. From a RAW perspective, it isnt allowed to be considered that way. So your way is really the best way to consider it.
If I was to give a similar comparison and need a roleplay justification, it could be similar to monk's abilities where sheer force of will can allow a person to exceed what normal people can do without magic.
I believe that lower statement though, we have a good point of conclusion should this issue come up in a game.
"It is within range of reasonable for roleplay" but then again, it also unfortunately isnt. That there is this discussion about the issue and people who disagree, it is also reasonable to accept that it does not affect persistent damage.
So we both have a visual of what happens. The enemy is about to strike, you should loudly the enemy "Hurt them and die!" and the sheer weight of your words causes a glimmer of what would befall them, just for a moment, causing their strike to falter.
So what has occured is a poor hit. The enemy rolled a crazy 6 damage, minus 3 for first level for three damage plus bleed!
But the same enemy type with same whatever ability strikes an ally 20 ft away... grazing your leg, hitting for only 2 damage plus bleed...
This is where as a roleplay, the logic would break down for me. Because of what the CR does, I would not be able to justifiably think of a reason that the more severe wound would bleed less. Sheer force of will? There is no actual magic being applied to the player.
Closest comparison would be say a barbarian's rage and temp hitpoints. But this has concentrate, Emotion, and mental conditions. It is not free and requires activity by the PC to continue. Top of head, I cannot think of any non magical passive buffs.
Edit: (Darn keep thinking of things after submitting post) By comparison, we need to look at the bard whose major roll in combat is to give non magical buffs/debuffs and other modifiers (I do love bards). Everything requires active input from the bard. There is no precedence for it I can think of.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Craz wrote: "It is within range of reasonable for roleplay" but then again, it also unfortunately isnt. That there is this discussion about the issue and people who disagree, it is also reasonable to accept that it does not affect persistent damage.
So we both have a visual of what happens. The enemy is about to strike, you should loudly the enemy "Hurt them and die!" and the sheer weight of your words causes a glimmer of what would befall them, just for a moment, causing their strike to falter.
So what has occured is a poor hit. The enemy rolled a crazy 6 damage, minus 3 for first level for three damage plus bleed!
The way Champions are written, they're Champions of Good wielding power that is beyond mortal knowing, that transcends magic and mundane understanding. Theyre literally capable of altering reality, and creating options for good that are otherwise impossible - such as allowing a mindless creature to feel regret, and if they choose to continue on their path, theyre forced to suffer the consequences of regret, and their target being shielded anyways. They can remove an ally from an enemies grasp in an instant, without any party involved in the entrapment needing to expend any action.
And they can do this without word, nor gesture, nor any restriction at all beyond proximity.
Making their abilities more mundane kindof... robs them of something that's written into the class. Champions are not written as mundane.
That may be true. And that is why one must balance RAW with the RP for precisely that reason. From a pure mechanical standpoint, you would not be allowed to have that work in any form of magical means. The only stuff that has the devotion and divine power would be the stuff that says you are using a spell and then lists the spell.
So when in a dilemma like this, we need to go to page 7:
THE FIRST RULE:
The first rule of pathfinder is that the game is yours. Use it to tell the stories you want to tell, be the character you want to be, and share exciting adventures with your friends. If any other rule gets in the way of your fun, as long as your group agrees, you can alter or ignore it to fit your story. The true goal of Pathfinder is for everyone to enjoy themselves.
No game will ever be the same.
When I GM society play modules? I can take the same module that my friend ran in a prior session and it will play SIGNIFICANTLY different because of the finer nuanced aspect that are not written. While I would love to give an example of this that happened when we both ran the same module same time in store just before everything shut down, but that would unfortunately risk giving spoilers to people.
The important part is we could both understand eachother's position. I myself would find it offensive if I, as a player, was told I did some mundane thing like throw a rock with vigor instead of a burst of divine energy to help my ally break a grapple. The visuals of it do not matter after all, it is the imagination of the player.
But in this case, both examples can be valid. As GM, we are obligated to hear a player's grievance at the table if they feel it should work some way. But as a player it is absolutely paramount that if a GM says no, and gives a reasonable, even if debatable in minor aspects of a decision, that we respect that and discuss it after play to ensure an enjoyable session at the table.
Actually, that is one reason I have decided to spend my afternoon chatting about this with you here. I have seen game sessions ruined, and players not return because of another player vs gm arguing for an extended period of time on semantics like this.
Leading us to essentially what would be the end of discussion unless a paizo representative gives specific answer on the subject or an errata addressing it. We all have discussed exhaustively all relatable RAW in regards to the subject. The only parts of contention relate to how we interpret those written rules. If we condensed it down, it really comes down to one point with, while I consider the answer within the RAW, others might not.
"Is persistent damage considered damage from the enemy?"
Some no, some yes, but there is nothing in the book we can point at directly and say that is the answer without also having a "but or if"
Liegence wrote: I suggest you read through the thread as we have been through all of this.
CR gives resistance to “all damage” which is specific to p453. Resistance applies to persistent damage as per p621. That is RAW.
These rules are very clearly stated. CR is an instantaneous effect, therefore it is permanent and does not have a time limit. When you start arguing that damage is not damage, or all damage doesn’t include some damage, then you are in RAI territory.
This is your error, right here.
Champions resistance only applies to the triggering attack, it's not some permanent condition.
It simply doesn't apply to the triggering attack condition as myself and others are interpreting it. Since triggering attack isn't a well defined terminology it is debatable, though I have relatively high confidence that this interpretation is correct (if we even get official clarification).
That general rule about resistance applying to persistent damage was meant to clarify that if you have (permanent racial fire resistance as an example) fire resistance 5, and you took a critical hit from a flaming weapon rune your resistance applies to all the damage you will take from fire from that rune. Both the initial 1d6 damage, and the 1d10 persistent fire damage you will take later.
But Champion's reaction only applies to for one instant, to the single triggering attack. So it would reduce the physical weapon damage and the fire damage from the flaming rune (and do so separately) but would do nothing to the persistent fire damage that you would take at the end of your next turn.
Also, I personally think that the definition of Persistent Damage helps clarify that it's not part of the initial attack, so it wouldn't be part of the "triggering attack".
Quote: Persistent damage is a condition that causes damage to recur beyond the original effect. Unlike with normal damage, when you are subject to persistent damage, you don’t take it right away. Instead, you take the specified damage at the end of your turns, after which you attempt a DC 15 flat check to see if you recover from the persistent damage. See the Conditions Appendix on pages 618–623 for the complete rules regarding the persistent damage condition. Edit: Looks like at least one other person used exactly the example and other people are making the same arguments I am.
It's not impossible that "triggering attack" could be defined to include persistent damage caused by an attack in a clarification by Paizo, but it's simply not the most straight forward reading of the rules in my opinion.
Double Edit: To clarify when I say "triggering attack" it's a short hand of saying the actual technical trigger of "an enemy damages an ally". To me that doesn't include persistent damage because the persistent damage is not an enemy damaging your ally, it's a condition damaging your ally.
If by some later clarification Paizo did rule that persistent damage counted as "an enemy damaging your ally" I would expect that you would need to spend your reaction that turn activating your Champion reaction against it that turn to reduce the damage (and on each subsequent if you wanted to continue reducing it).
For Claxon,
Quote: That general rule about resistance applying to persistent damage was meant to clarify that if you have fire resistance 5, and you took a critical hit from a flaming weapon rune your resistance applies to all the damage you will take from fire from that rune. Both the initial 1d6 damage, and the 1d10 persistent fire damage you will take later. The way you phrased it might cause confusion. I think need to add that if you have fire resistance 5, you resist the initial hit, but if you still have the resistance 5 when you take the persistent, you also will get resistance to that damage roll.
Though the implication that the 1d10 comes from the rune itself can be of issue and part of the early confusion. This is implying that the persistent damage is coming from the rune itself. But this is also never really clarified. For example with acid damage, it comes from the acid staying on the skin. Bleed is not magical, it is the result of a sharp cut. Fire damage is because the rune did damage causing it to ignite.
This logic is supported because if you resisted the initial 1d6 fire damage, you would not earn the 1d10 fire damage. This is a constant for all persistent damage.
Because persistent damage can be pretty well spread and come from both magical and non magical sources, your example wouldn't really be a suitable mechanical explanation.
Reason I bring this up is that stuff like dispel and magic resistance comes into play. As discussed earlier in the day, persistence is classified as a condition, and as such wouldn't be subject to dispel, etc. Personally, I do not have spell resistance affect persistent damage because the ongoing damage is from a non magical source in my gm style.
@Craz, that's fair and I added a clarification to my post to reflect that I was referring to a permanent fire resistance, or rather not a temporary resistance as the Champion's Reaction is.
You are also correct that if the initial fire damage was completely resisted it would prevent the condition from occurring.
And another point to clarify, I also 100% agree the damage comes from the condition and not another source.
Craz wrote: I thought it is pretty clear. "Triggering Damage" the trigger is "An enemy damages your ally" Therefore the triggering damage is the damage done to the ally. It isn't when an enemy attacks. It is when they deal damage. Meaning damage dice are rolled. So the resistance applies to those rolls because those rolls are the trigger.
And persistent damage is not an enemy doing damage. It is a condition the enemy applied, but is not the enemy doing it.
That is the part that is making me get confused with this discussion. The RAW is explicit that the damage from persistent is as a result of a condition directly.
The trigger occurs at the moment the attack is applied. Therefore you cannot move out of the 15 range.
Edit: Markus Reese above is me. I forgot to set Craz to default. My bad.
And it's pretty clear that is says 15 feet for both Champion and Creature.
Recent threads in Rules Discussion
|
