Ergo, does making a strike with a flaming rune Wish Blade allow you to trigger the resonant trait off it or use a Conducting Rune?
My understanding is yes, because the fire trait is inherited by the weapon and therefore the attack. But we've been discussing it a lot in my group, because my interpretation will cause weapons with the flaming rune to become unusable underwater, and weapons with the sonic trait not work in an area of silence.
I've found weapon strikes in the Bestiary that seem to gain the fire trait from a feature that says any weapon they're holding has the effects of the flaming rune.
But I'm hoping for more discussion to help me navigate this.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There was a comment made that confirmed the line about attacks inheriting traits from the damage types they deal as intentionally removed in the second CRB printing. Given that this line was intentionally removed, I would say that attacking with a weapon with an elemental rune does not give the Strike the associated trait and does this not trigger Conduct Energy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, notably, I'd heard that but I couldn't find anything in the errata concerning it, and its a substantial rules adjustment. So I was wondering if it was removed to change the rules, or was simply considered redundant or something.
If the Strike gains the Fire trait it would mean that an enemy immune to Fire would be immune to attacks with a Flaming weapon. Considering that you can have up to 3 elemental runes at high level, you'd face a lot of monsters immune to your attacks.
Unfortunately, PF2 doesn't separate the type of damage and the trait for immunities, so a monster immune to Fire is immune to both Fire damage and effects with the Fire trait.
So, notably, I'd heard that but I couldn't find anything in the errata concerning it, and its a substantial rules adjustment. So I was wondering if it was removed to change the rules, or was simply considered redundant or something.
There was a comment made in the Arcane Mark discord, but I really don't want it to be taken out of context or as an official answer to any question and decrease the likelihood of getting design comments in the future.
The comment was simply that the CRB change was made intentionally, and some specifics about Conduct Energy.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the Strike gains the Fire trait it would mean that an enemy immune to Fire would be immune to attacks with a Flaming weapon. Considering that you can have up to 3 elemental runes at high level, you'd face a lot of monsters immune to your attacks.
Unfortunately, PF2 doesn't separate the type of damage and the trait for immunities, so a monster immune to Fire is immune to both Fire damage and effects with the Fire trait.
That's actually not a problem
If you have immunity to effects with a certain trait (such as death effects, poison, or disease), you are unaffected by effects with that trait. Often, an effect has a trait and deals that type of damage (this is especially true in the case of energy damage types). In these cases, the immunity applies to the effect corresponding to the trait, not just the damage. However, some complex effects might have parts that affect you even if you're immune to one of the effect's traits; for instance, a spell that deals both fire and acid damage can still deal acid damage to you even if you're immune to fire.
https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=343
this could also imply that underwater would suppress the effect of the flaming rune, but not of the rest of the weapon, although that's not actually an immunity.
Apparently trait inheritance is intended
I love you for passing this along.
if Avi does turn out to be wrong at some point, its no hard feelings, but I appreciate having something to go off of.
Apparently trait inheritance is intendedI love you for passing this along.
if Avi does turn out to be wrong at some point, its no hard feelings, but I appreciate having something to go off of.
The relevant counter-quote
Even if you can conduct off a Strike (which the CRB errata was intentional and the question posed to Avi was more about trait inheritance and not "I am trying to use trait inheritance to trigger a Strike damage bonus that normally works off energy spells and effects from the Strike itself"), that woudn't happen because you are trying to combine the same effect multiple times.
So I wouldn't use the trait inheritance for things like Conducting, but maybe for other effects it is acceptable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ergo, does making a strike with a flaming rune Wish Blade allow you to trigger the resonant trait off it or use a Conducting Rune?
My understanding is yes, because the fire trait is inherited by the weapon and therefore the attack. But we've been discussing it a lot in my group, because my interpretation will cause weapons with the flaming rune to become unusable underwater, and weapons with the sonic trait not work in an area of silence.
I've found weapon strikes in the Bestiary that seem to gain the fire trait from a feature that says any weapon they're holding has the effects of the flaming rune.
But I'm hoping for more discussion to help me navigate this.
I don't think it does because the whole action does not gain the trait.
With a frost or flaming rune the rune has the energy trait and the additional damage has the trait. Just I can't see that the weapon or
the whole strike action has the trait. I mean the strike is actually doing multiple types of damage and additional damage. It sort of makes sense If I strike with a sword with a frost and a flaming attack maybe just the flaming will not work underwater.
However there is a clear exception which raises doubt about this.
While raging, you can increase the additional damage from Rage from 2 to 4 and change its damage type to match that of your dragon's breath weapon instead of the damage type for your weapon or unarmed attack. If you do this, your Rage action gains the arcane and evocation traits, as well as the trait matching the damage type.
So your combination does explicitly work for Draconic barbarians.
Apparently trait inheritance is intendedI love you for passing this along.
if Avi does turn out to be wrong at some point, its no hard feelings, but I appreciate having something to go off of.
The relevant counter-quote
Even if you can conduct off a Strike (which the CRB errata was intentional and the question posed to Avi was more about trait inheritance and not "I am trying to use trait inheritance to trigger a Strike damage bonus that normally works off energy spells and effects from the Strike itself"), that woudn't happen because you are trying to combine the same effect multiple times.So I wouldn't use the trait inheritance for things like Conducting, but maybe for other effects it is acceptable.
Wait, wheres the counter quote from?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, wheres the counter quote from?Apparently trait inheritance is intendedI love you for passing this along.
if Avi does turn out to be wrong at some point, its no hard feelings, but I appreciate having something to go off of.
The relevant counter-quote
Even if you can conduct off a Strike (which the CRB errata was intentional and the question posed to Avi was more about trait inheritance and not "I am trying to use trait inheritance to trigger a Strike damage bonus that normally works off energy spells and effects from the Strike itself"), that woudn't happen because you are trying to combine the same effect multiple times.So I wouldn't use the trait inheritance for things like Conducting, but maybe for other effects it is acceptable.
In the Arcane Mark Discord server, like Xethik said.
Not gonna screenshot it, 'cause like Xethik I don't want the statement to be taken out of context and parading it around like some are choosing to do with Avi's statement.
Wait, wheres the counter quote from?Apparently trait inheritance is intendedI love you for passing this along.
if Avi does turn out to be wrong at some point, its no hard feelings, but I appreciate having something to go off of.
The relevant counter-quote
Even if you can conduct off a Strike (which the CRB errata was intentional and the question posed to Avi was more about trait inheritance and not "I am trying to use trait inheritance to trigger a Strike damage bonus that normally works off energy spells and effects from the Strike itself"), that woudn't happen because you are trying to combine the same effect multiple times.So I wouldn't use the trait inheritance for things like Conducting, but maybe for other effects it is acceptable.In the Arcane Mark Discord server, like Xethik said.
Not gonna screenshot it, 'cause like Xethik I don't want the statement to be taken out of context and parading it around like some are choosing to do with Avi's statement.
That seems like an unfair characterization, given that permission to screencap was asked and recieved for this purpose in the screenshot they cited.
But yeah, I was more asking so I could see the context to understand what was said since the snippet listed didnt seem complete enough to be actionable (it doesn't teach me how to read the rule, you could say.)
If Mark prefers for it not to be cited in a ruling capacity, we probably shouldn't bring it up in the first place in a discussion like this.
I'm happy with what was provided by Avi in lieu of an official clarification, it makes sense and I assume its the protocol they use when conducting editing passes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It seems odd that they apparently intentionally removed the only reference to this mechanic in the book if it was also intentional for the mechanic to remain in place at the same time.
It seems odd that they apparently intentionally removed the only reference to this mechanic in the book if it was also intentional for the mechanic to remain in place at the same time.
While simultaneously not putting it in the list of textual changes (e.g. the errata) to the game despite it changing between printings, and the change removing the text without making it clear what *does* happen? yeeeaaaah.
Pathfinder 2e's ruleset is a big ship, I wouldn't be shocked if some wires got crossed in a way no one noticed (since everyone has a clear interpretation of the rules in their heads, regardless of which they believe is true) so I'm sure they'll errata or further clarify at some point.
But the last thing we need to do is bicker about what to do in the meantime, Avi's statement about the internal trait inheritance seems pretty definitive for the time being, and they were completely comfortable with it being cited, so I'm gonna stick with it for the sake of clarity.
Annnnnd this is why Paizo staff don't answer rule inquiries often.
TBF, I'm grateful to have something to go off of, if they need to adjust that later its fine, but the text being yeeted out of the book without any other information (for whatever reason) created a confusing situation for my table and I wasn't sure about what ruling I wanted since traits can have far reaching consequences.
So its really helpful that someone said something.
Annnnnd this is why Paizo staff don't answer rule inquiries often.
This.
And not only that, but it's Paizo's official policy that these random statements have 0 bearing on the game or future errata. The person in question might flag it for future errata, but it still goes through the exact same process as anything else, including multiple rounds of edits, and potentially a clarification from someone else that that's not how it's supposed to work, since no one person at Paizo is expected to know all the rules.
Someone at Paizo talking in an unofficial capacity is equally as authoritative of a source as literally anyone else, and is less of an authority than anyone at an individual table (player and GM alike). Yes, they're probably more likely to be correct than some random person, but the level of authority on the matter is the same, and I'm sure if asked they'd say the same: that they were just trying to be helpful and provide as accurate of information as possible according to what they know, and not that they were making a ruling.
They even said as much in the screenshots: that it's possible other designers will say they're wrong. Btw, I'm not saying this is likely. I'm just that they're hedging their bets, and I'm guessing that's because they're well aware of Paizo's policy that, outside of errata, staff rulings aren't official
Also, for the record, it was asked if it could be saved as a reminder, not as an official ruling. Of course someone can save a screenshot of a conversation they had as a reminder for themselves or potentially others who are interested.
P.S.
I have an opinion about which way this issue should be ruled, but at this point I think there's not much more to say on that topic in this thread, and it doesn't really have a bearing on what I'm saying in this post. Regardless of which of the two statements were put up as evidence in favor of one ruling over the other I'd be against the practice of using said statements as evidence.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Annnnnd this is why Paizo staff don't answer rule inquiries often.TBF, I'm grateful to have something to go off of, if they need to adjust that later its fine, but the text being yeeted out of the book without any other information (for whatever reason) created a confusing situation for my table and I wasn't sure about what ruling I wanted since traits can have far reaching consequences.
So its really helpful that someone said something.
Yes, I'm not surprised you're grateful to have a quote that supports your view while dismissing the one that said the first quote is taken out of context and says the exact opposite in even clearer words, calling out the exact action (conduct energy) you're asking about.
Note: I don't think the other quote proves anything either. My point is related to the hypocrisy, not the accuracy or validity of a specific ruling.
Annnnnd this is why Paizo staff don't answer rule inquiries often.TBF, I'm grateful to have something to go off of, if they need to adjust that later its fine, but the text being yeeted out of the book without any other information (for whatever reason) created a confusing situation for my table and I wasn't sure about what ruling I wanted since traits can have far reaching consequences.
So its really helpful that someone said something.
Yes, I'm not surprised you're grateful to have a quote that supports your view while dismissing the one that said the first quote is taken out of context and says the exact opposite in even clearer words, calling out the exact action (conduct energy) you're asking about.
Note: I don't think the other quote proves anything either. My point is related to the hypocrisy, not the accuracy or validity of a specific ruling.
What is wrong with you? The other quote was a snippet that didnt actually clarify the rule, at least not in any of the text posted here.
It doesn't really answer my question about traits in a complete fasion either (if you look back up at the OP the controversy at my table was around flaming weapons functioning underwater, not the conduct energy part) either AND people are implying theyve been asked not to cite it as a rules clarification.
When I say I'm grateful I'm trying to avert Paizo people feeling like answering questions is a mistake because its nice to be able to see casual clarifications pop up, hence my
"Its fine if it does turn out to be wrong, but im happy to rely on it for now!"
thing. People are already getting touchy in this thread, I dont want to send a message that says us getting these informal clarifications is a mistake. Because without either quote? As a GM I'm up the creek without a paddle looking for rules text I didn't know disappeared and trying to identify how the rules actually changed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, let's please not get nasty with each other. The-Magic-Sword is a good noodle, and they just wanted an answer. I can certainly relate to that.
Also, my bad for the mischaracterization. I just can see how screenshots can be taken on a rollercoaster out-of-context-wise. Best to err on the side of caution until either FAQ or errata is posted.
What is wrong with you?Annnnnd this is why Paizo staff don't answer rule inquiries often.TBF, I'm grateful to have something to go off of, if they need to adjust that later its fine, but the text being yeeted out of the book without any other information (for whatever reason) created a confusing situation for my table and I wasn't sure about what ruling I wanted since traits can have far reaching consequences.
So its really helpful that someone said something.
Yes, I'm not surprised you're grateful to have a quote that supports your view while dismissing the one that said the first quote is taken out of context and says the exact opposite in even clearer words, calling out the exact action (conduct energy) you're asking about.
Note: I don't think the other quote proves anything either. My point is related to the hypocrisy, not the accuracy or validity of a specific ruling.
I've seen this exact thing too many times and am jaded and get a little annoyed when I see people latch onto a word or a sentence (especially if it's out of context) and ignore everything else.
Also, if you're going to complain that I'm being rude, try not to be rude in response. "What is wrong with you" is just as inflammatory of a statement as my implication that you're being hypocritical. This doesn't mean that I'm in the right. I probably should have been more polite, and I apologize, but my point still remains, and at least mine was on topic of a point rather than simply saying that there's something wrong with me.
The other quote was a snippet that didnt actually clarify the rule, at least not in any of the text posted here.
It doesn't really answer my question about traits in a complete fasion either (if you look back up at the OP the controversy at my table was around flaming weapons functioning underwater, not the conduct energy part)
Correct, it doesn't answer all of your question, but it answers the first part. The idea that this is in no way about / relevant for conduct energy is a blatant lie. A quote from your original post:
Ergo, does making a strike with a flaming rune Wish Blade allow you to trigger the resonant trait off it or use a Conducting Rune?
AND people are implying theyve been asked not to cite it as a rules clarification.
I can understand why you'd think that, but that is in no way what actually happened. Honestly, I'm not sure why they're more apprehensive about posting a screenshot than posting the text itself, as that solves nothing, but also I'm too lazy to make an imgur account to post it myself, so I'm partially to blame as well, lol.
Anyway, back to the point: No one asked whether they could share this as a rules clarification in the first place, and no one said that it shouldn't be, because it is well known within the Arcane Mark discord that both Mark's and Paizo's policy is that these ARE NOT official rules clarifications.When I say I'm grateful I'm trying to avert Paizo people feeling like answering questions is a mistake because its nice to be able to see casual clarifications pop up, hence my
"Its fine if it does turn out to be wrong, but im happy to rely on it for now!"
thing.
I understand this view of it, but personally disagree with it (in the context of these forums) for the exact reasons stated above by me and others. Too often people will post these quotes, whether in context or not, and use them as gospel, ignoring anything said without a quote to back it up. PF2 rules are not meant to be an issue of who with more authority said what, and people shouldn't be expected to track down a designer to talk about what a rule means, but that's what it inevitably devolves into when these snippits are regularly shared here and elsewhere. Don't get me started on how annoying it is to hear "Jeremy Crawford said on twitter..." when playing 5e
People are already getting touchy in this thread, I dont want to send a message that says us getting these informal clarifications is a mistake. Because without either quote? As a GM I'm up the creek without a paddle looking for rules text I didn't know disappeared and trying to identify how the rules actually changed.
I'm not saying not to use them as a source for your personal game. Go right ahead. What I'm explaining is the following:
1. It's not meant to be used as evidence in a rules discussion2. As mentioned previously, people at Paizo are people too. It's not impossible for Avi, Mark, or both to be wrong about any given ruling, especially if they're making off-the-cuff answers based on their memory to help someone out. But that doesn't mean those off-the-cuff answers should be discouraged
- Honestly, the main reason why I like to make it clear that these aren't official rulings is to make Paizo staff willing to talk about things in a casual context, because, as you said, sometimes you just want a second opinion, and who better to weigh in a ruling (if they have time) than people who worked on the game?
3. Well, if you're up a creek without a paddle about rules, then you've come to the right place! Or, I wish I could say that, but at this point most of this conversation has devolved into appeals to authority, which is exactly why these kinds of things being posted here is discouraged no matter the context. If it wasn't brought up in the first place I'm willing to bet there'd be a lot more people talking about the actual issues.
sounds like choose your favorite source and go with that.
Yep, it sounds like that's what this has devolved into instead of a substantive discussion.
sounds like choose your favorite source and go with that.Yep, it sounds like that's what this has devolved into instead of a substantive discussion.no, I'd say there are Appeals to Authority both ways. It will take YEARS to get any official ruling via FAQs if history is any indicator.
Clearly yall need to discuss the impacts and frequency of the case popping up in play so GMs can make informed decisions. The problem is the usual one of 'being right' rather than discussing merits of each option.
Players need to accept that their GM makes good decisions for good reasons. If you're in Org Play discuss it with the table GM befole you sit and you may have to skip the game if it's super important to you.
Personally the GM plays a larger role in PF2.
Nothing you said is wrong, but that doesn't change the fact that this forum is where people are sent to when they're looking to discuss these rules, especially if they ARE a GM.
I stand by my statement. Both sides have devolved into appeals to authority, which is very much not a good thing.
Personally I'm not even convinced one way or another at this point, but I've realized discussing it further won't get us anywhere.
Honestly, I'm not sure why they're more apprehensive about posting a screenshot than posting the text itself, as that solves nothing, but also I'm too lazy to make an imgur account to post it myself, so I'm partially to blame as well, lol.
Really I didn't even want to go that far but I somewhat escalated when I saw Avi's comments screenshotted when that was something addressed in particular with the Arcane Mark message.
I believe you can upload to imgur without an account, but I was feeling too lazy to go that far on mobile. I can be easily proven regardless so I have very little reason to lie about that quote.If anyone wants more context or surrounding statements around the quote, I recommend joining and searching the Arcane Mark discord. But as mentioned, comments made there are not official rulings or final clarifications. Please do not ask or use them as such.
What is wrong with you?Annnnnd this is why Paizo staff don't answer rule inquiries often.TBF, I'm grateful to have something to go off of, if they need to adjust that later its fine, but the text being yeeted out of the book without any other information (for whatever reason) created a confusing situation for my table and I wasn't sure about what ruling I wanted since traits can have far reaching consequences.
So its really helpful that someone said something.
Yes, I'm not surprised you're grateful to have a quote that supports your view while dismissing the one that said the first quote is taken out of context and says the exact opposite in even clearer words, calling out the exact action (conduct energy) you're asking about.
Note: I don't think the other quote proves anything either. My point is related to the hypocrisy, not the accuracy or validity of a specific ruling.
I've seen this exact thing too many times and am jaded and get a little annoyed when I see people latch onto a word or a sentence (especially if it's out of context) and ignore everything else.
Also, if you're going to complain that I'm being rude, try not to be rude in response. "What is wrong with you" is just as inflammatory of a statement as my implication that you're being hypocritical. This doesn't mean that I'm in the right. I probably should have been more polite, and I apologize, but my point still remains, and at least mine was on topic of a point rather than simply saying that there's something wrong with me.
Correct,...The other quote was a snippet that didnt actually clarify the rule, at least not in any of the text posted here.
It doesn't really answer my question about traits in a complete fasion either (if you look back up at the OP the controversy at my table was around flaming weapons functioning underwater, not the conduct energy part)
I appreciate the apology, I typed that as a push back intended to function as cold water, so my own apologies if it hurt at all.
Specifically, if that was all that was written in the arcane mark discord about it, I'm taking it more as a signal that Paizo will further clarify something at some point. The way Mark clarified it has two things that make me hesitate:
1. He presents trait inheritability as a multiple choice ("even if") which means it doesn't answer my underwater fire weapons question.
2. If trait inheritability is a thing, he states that Conduct Energy 'still' doesn't work because its supposed to be for spells. But this isn't reflected by the current text, which is fine by itself I can jive RAI, but I don't know whether to self errata away trait inheritability or adjust Conduct Energy directly.
Avi's ruling meanwhile seems like what I want for now because it answers my questions about trait inheritability , as soon as I accept it I know exactly how traits interact, what things have what traits, and how to rule on everything I was confused about. Which is supposed to be the purpose of traits, clarifying what works with what and how. I can even take their clarification, and then use Mark's for advice on adjusting Conduct Energy at my table, by adjusting it not to work with weapon attacks.
Overall though, I might not, Conduct Energy doesn't matter much because even in its strongest ruling, its about the same damage as the property rune you'd put in its place, but a little worse due to the way weakness and resistance works. so as gm, I'm already comfortable with it (and it plays a comfortable niche as a way to double down on an element when you get that second rune.)
sounds like choose your favorite source and go with that.Yep, it sounds like that's what this has devolved into instead of a substantive discussion.I'd say it has been shown that there are Appeals to Authority both ways. It will take YEARS to get any official ruling via FAQs if history is any indicator. So it is time to say It is a GM decision and move on.
Clearly yall need to discuss the impacts and frequency of the case popping up in play so GMs can make informed decisions. The problem is the usual one of 'being right' rather than discussing merits of each option.
Players need to accept that their GM makes good decisions for good reasons. If you're in Org Play discuss it with the table GM befole you sit and you may have to skip the game if it's super important to you.
Personally the GM plays a larger role in PF2.
To be fair, I have that covered in conversations with my players, and still couldn't come to a satisfactory resolution for our table. Maybe I have too much 5e experience to glorify GM rulings, but entire game concepts being subject to the GM's whim and having radical knock on effects throughout the system (as is the case with trait inherit-ability), in ways that will be different for every GM isn't my cup of tea.
I don't mind making rulings, and even houserules, but I like to know when I'm doing it or that the thing I'm ruling on is fairly niche.
Edit: Editing here since I can't edit my previous post, but I just realized that it seems like Mark was responding to the idea of daisy chaining conduct energies to cheese multiple instances of the bonus "that woudn't happen because you are trying to combine the same effect multiple times." I am NOT proposing that (for the reason Mark lists), I am talking only about doing a strike with a flaming weapon, and then conducting the energy of the fire-trait strike to get the conduct energy bonus on the follow up attacks in a non stacking manner, which makes the damage about the same as a different property rune would automatically apply (except nothing on the first attack, obviously.)
During playtest Mark's said that additional/extra damage like flame runes or barbarian additional damage has to calculated separated from main damage formula.
So if a sword with flame rune is used against a flame immune or resistant creature only the additional fire damage would be resisted.
This also fix some super effective critical damage added by property runes and precision attacks and other things that are not classified as item, circumstance or state bonus being unlimited added to damage because they could stack.
But some people don't accept or even know this concept because it was said by Mark during playtest and wasn't mentioned since the core book publication.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I understand that everything labeled additional damage or extra damage is included. So yes some resistances could turn low additional damage like Weapon Specialization useless.
Here 2 old Mark's topic speaking about this:
https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42s8m?Rage-bonus-damage-type#2
https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42bxf?Two-Small-Flaws-in-the-Weakness-System#2 4
Because the lack of updates about how additional/extra damage works I still uses this mark's playtest concept about how additional damages works.
But being honest I really think this must be clarified in a errata explaining exactly how additional/extra really works in situations that we have resistances, weakness, hardness and crit.
Yeah, tbh, I don't think that made it past the playtest, it contradicts how the core book calculates damage and immunities.
|
Playtest references really aren't relevant for the final rules, IMO. In the CRB, the term "additional" is used in ways that seem interchangeable with "extra." Beyond Rage and Weapon Specialization, Debilitating Strike refers to "additional" precision damage. The critical specialization of picks is 2 additional damage per damage die. The Dwarven Thrower does additional damage.
This seems like it would create a lot of individual pools of damage if additional damage was always treated as a separate thing. Instead of additional damage just being, you know, added.
Re-reading the rules I notice that I was partially wrong.
If I have understand this right extra damage of same type (or origin like weapons?) of your attack are added to the formula:
At certain levels, most characters gain the ability to deal extra damage from the weapon specialization class feature.
So could we consider that other extra damages like fury (non-elemental) are added to formula too?
But other damage types have to be noted apart to be reduced in cases of resistance to avoid retroactively apply to others damage types and repeats if there's many resistances that apply at same time:
It’s possible to have resistance to all damage. When an effect deals damage of multiple types and you have resistance to all damage, apply the resistance to each type of damage separately. If an attack would deal 7 slashing damage and 4 fire damage, resistance 5 to all damage would reduce the slashing damage to 2 and negate the fire damage entirely.
To be honest would be much simple if they use separated pools of damage for each additional/extra damage instead.