If you take multiple types of damage from a single undead creature's individual attack, such as slashing and negative for example, do you apply the resistance once (since it is a single attack from a single undead enemy), or do you apply it against each damage type like "Resist all?"
Also, if said undead creature is attacking you with a manufactured weapon, such as a longsword, rather than a natural or magical attack originating directly from the undead, do you get to apply your resistance at all?
DR isn't really a thing in PF2. Resistance rules have very much changed, and quite frankly, I don't know the right answer to the question as asked, but the way I read it there are effectively two resistances given. One is to attacks from undead, and the other is to negative damage. With that in mind, as "resist all" isn't mentioned (and is a special exception to the general rules of resistance) it should be treated simply as 2 separate resistances in the same way resistance to piercing and bludgeoning is, and so imo it should never apply more than twice to a single hit: once for the negative damage, and once for the separate resistance to undead. The other option would be it only ever triggering once, which I think is perhaps even more reasonable, but I definitely wouldn't allow it to act like resistance all against undead, as resistance all is a special exception and so it would need to be called out more specifically.
It's very possible I'm missing something, but figured I'd throw my 2 copper in there.
It absolutely resists the weapon damage of undead since that still qualifies as an attack from undead and there's no stipulation it's only natural or unarmed attacks. Narratively it's a bit awkward, but so is resisting fire/claws/spells/etc. from the undead guy, but not fire (et al) from the necromancer you hate equally. The resistance seems more rooted in the Barbarian's mettle vs. such foes rather than an objective toughness...except of course it works whether or not the Barbarian knows they're facing an undead! (Which I now realize makes it one way to determine who's the undead spy or not, say in Ustalav. "I'm going to get angry and I want you to slap me." "What??")
I lean toward Aw3som3's interpretation re: multiple damage types where at most one would get negative & undead separately, but not each sub-type of undead damage as if it were "resist all; undead variant".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The first question I think is the easier one. The resistance applies to weapon damage caused by an undead the same as any other attack. If they wanted to limit to unarmed attacks, they would have said so.
I think you get to double dip on the resistance. Resist Negative(3+Con), and Resist Undead attacks and abilities (3+Con). Both are much more uncommon than the more applicable resistances of other instincts. It's going to be pretty rare that you fight an undead that deals both negative and another type of damage in the same attack.
So if a Bodak hits you with a Fist, dealing 2d6+6 bludgeoning and 1d6 Negative, you resist 7 of the bludgeoning damage and all of the negative.
A dread wraith's spectral hand does 2d10+7 negative. In this case you only get 7 negative, since you fall back on RAW for multiple resistance types applying.
If you have more than one type of resistance that would apply to the same instance of damage, use only the highest applicable resistance value.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you take multiple types of damage from a single undead creature's individual attack, such as slashing and negative for example, do you apply the resistance once (since it is a single attack from a single undead enemy), or do you apply it against each damage type like "Resist all?"
Also, if said undead creature is attacking you with a manufactured weapon, such as a longsword, rather than a natural or magical attack originating directly from the undead, do you get to apply your resistance at all?
I personally consider this Resistance the same way as Resist All. First because "resist damage dealt [...] regardless of damage type" is a good definition of Resist All. And second because there's no support for a Resistance that would apply only once to a whole bunch of damage types, so I'd have to come up with a houserule.
For me, the RAW only supports the Resist All interpretation.
I'd treat it as Resist All. Spirit Instinct only really shines when it is ghost busting, so let it shine bright.
Also, undead dealing two+ damage types without including negative... That's got to be almost non-existant. High level Monsters aren't reliant on having 3 different property runes dealing different damage types to stay competitive. They just get great big static modifiers.
It absolutely resists the weapon damage of undead since that still qualifies as an attack from undead and there's no stipulation it's only natural or unarmed attacks. Narratively it's a bit awkward, but so is resisting fire/claws/spells/etc. from the undead guy, but not fire (et al) from the necromancer you hate equally. The resistance seems more rooted in the Barbarian's mettle vs. such foes rather than an objective toughness...except of course it works whether or not the Barbarian knows they're facing an undead! (Which I now realize makes it one way to determine who's the undead spy or not, say in Ustalav. "I'm going to get angry and I want you to slap me." "What??")
I really like your idea that this is rooted in the barbarian's mind rather than the body. It fits with how Rage works. I wouldn't allow the spy shenanigans, though, even if it is RAW. I'd rather use the new Band rune as a template: it is based on your knowledge and understanding of the target.
You could try to game the system by tricking the barbarian into thinking everything it fights is undead, but... That's hilarious. Get that Fabricate in there.
When I initially asked this question, I didn't know that the resistance applied to both attacks from undead creatures AND negative damage. I thought it was just the former when I gave my negative energy example (I could have just as easily said slashing and fire).
Reading other Instincts, I think applying it as a Resist All is what is intended. For example, the Fury Instinct specifies that you resist "physical weapon damage". As all weapons deal mainly physical damage, the word physical is only useful if by default the resistance has to be applied to all types of damage and not only once.
Fury instinct specificies "physical" because there's stuff treated as weapon that is "not" a real weapon ( for example, spiritual weapon which deals force damage ).
Fury works against Spiritual Weapon if you deal Physical damage with it.
Also, you won't find many similar cases. I actually can't find another one. So I don't think that's the main reason of the use of the word physical.By just saying "weapon damage" people would have definitely tried to exploit it ( all damage from weapons, so if a weapon deals 1d8 + 1d6 fire it applies to either physical and fire. Or "a spiritual weapon is a weapon, so it applies to that too" ).
Why would it be an exploit?
I think they used the word physical because without it you would have resisted each weapon damage type separately, allowing you to nearly ignore elemental runes while still reducing the weapon main damage. In my opinion, the word physical is not a redundant word, it's there because it's needed. And it supports the Resist All interpretation.
And it supports the Resist All interpretation.I don't see how.
If you get struck by a flaming sword, you reduce the total damage by CONST + 3. You don't get fire res = CONST +3 and physical res = CONST +3.
The Resist All interpretation in the case of the Spirit Barbarian. I was using the Fury Instinct as an example of how they word it to avoid resisting all damage types separately.
Fury instinct specificies "physical" because there's stuff treated as weapon that is "not" a real weapon ( for example, spiritual weapon which deals force damage ).Fury works against Spiritual Weapon if you deal Physical damage with it.
Also, you won't find many similar cases. I actually can't find another one. So I don't think that's the main reason of the use of the word physical.
I still have to see anybody choosing physical damage over force. But you have a point saying it's a possibility.
Why would it be an exploit?
I think they used the word physical because without it you would have resisted each weapon damage type separately, allowing you to nearly ignore elemental runes while still reducing the weapon main damage.That's exactly what I said ( in order to ignore elemental runes or just anything non "physical" damage, the added "physical", and they made a good choice ).
And it supports the Resist All interpretation.I don't see how.
If you get struck by a flaming sword, you reduce the total damage by CONST + 3. You don't get fire res = CONST +3 and physical res = CONST +3.
I've definitely seen physical damage used, because Slashing is much better for dicing zombies than Force.