I've always run it as half again (12) - 5 = 7 damage.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No rule that I'm aware of, but as starfinder follows regular math unless specified otherwise, multiply then subtract.
|
I've always run it as half again (12) - 5 = 7 damage.
That's how I've always run it as well, but reading this thread made me pause and think for a bit. And now I'm leaning the other way.
If I get hit for 20 points of electricity damage, and my Mk2 Electrostatic Field armor upgrade provides 10 points of resistance, that should lower the damage to 10 points. If I, personally, am vulnerable to electricity then the damage that hits me should be multiplied by 1.5, for a total of 15 points. Because my armor reduced the damage, and it wasn't particularly vulnerable to electricity. As opposed to a total of 20 if you multiply before the armor upgrade is counted.
Not saying I'm right here. And you could definitely ask questions like "but what if it was magical resistance granted directly to you?" (For consistency's sake I'd operate in the same order regardless of what the source of the resistance is.)
If I get hit for 20 points of electricity damage, and my Mk2 Electrostatic Field armor upgrade provides 10 points of resistance, that should lower the damage to 10 points.
That's kind of begging the question. If a weapon does 20 points of electricity damage and you're vulnerable , are you "hit for" 20 points of damage or 30? Hit for doesn't have a defined order in the math here.
I don't think we should worry about the armor being hit first or whatever makes sense in a simulationist viewpoint, but from the gamist viewpoint.
PCs don't typically have vulnerabilities to damage types, NPCs do. Erring on the side of the PCs doing more damage and finishing fights quicker seems to me the better choice.
Lets the PC who planned ahead get more bang for their buck, even if the boss planned ahead as well.
Check to see what the PF2 order of operations is. I know there is one.
Check to see what the PF2 order of operations is. I know there is one.
Isn't PF2 weakness 5, resistance 5? so they just cancel each other out? Sure, PF2 creatures/NPCs don't typically have both because they try and design for simple encounters and weaknesses are 'cleverly' disguised reasons for an encounter to have more hit points. But I'm pretty sure it isn't 'vulnerable fire' it's just 'weakness 10 fire' so they take 10 more damage from any fire damage, and resistance 10 fire just cancels out that vulnerability.
Don't know if this helps but I think in an old Pathfinder campaign there is a dragon who has prepared for the PC encounter. They have cast one of the resistance spells on themselves to reduce their elemental resistance, reducing the damage before their weakness kicks in. However that could also easily have just been my DM making it more challenging
Check to see what the PF2 order of operations is. I know there is one.Isn't PF2 weakness 5, resistance 5? so they just cancel each other out? Sure, PF2 creatures/NPCs don't typically have both because they try and design for simple encounters and weaknesses are 'cleverly' disguised reasons for an encounter to have more hit points. But I'm pretty sure it isn't 'vulnerable fire' it's just 'weakness 10 fire' so they take 10 more damage from any fire damage, and resistance 10 fire just cancels out that vulnerability.
I don’t think you just sum them. If you take 4 points of fire damage with both resistance 5 and weakness 10 you can take either 9 (net them out, only apply 5 weakness), 0 (apply resistance first then weakness), or 9 (apply weakness then resistance.
I remember there is an order of operations, and I think it’s apply weakness first, but I’m not sure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've always applied resistance before vulnerability. I consider it the final layer of defenses an attack needs to penetrate (which would also include miss chances, AC, and saving throws, in that order) to deal damage.
I don't think Starfinder or even Pathfinder 1E ever clarified the order of effects. (Full disclosure: Some PF1E devs did weigh in on vulnerability vs. hardness, when it came to robots, and decided that vulnerability was applied before hardness.)
But if you dig deep enough into the historical strata, the official D20 3.5 specified that resistance came before vulnerability. So, not an official Paizo ruling, but a precedent that's never been officially changed to my knowledge.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The PF2 rule is on CRB 451.
"Apply immunities first, then weaknesses, and resistances third."
That plus the vulnerability/hardness thing makes me thing vulnerability should be applied first in Starfinder as a matter of consistency and implied developer trends in the company that make it probably this would be the outcome if the Starfinder devs did rule on it.
*nods*
BTW, by "the official D20 3.5" I meant to type "the official D20 3.5 FAQ," for posterity's sake.
|
The simple concept is that the damage would be affected by what one is wearing before it actually affects the one.Problem is, this means that two otherwise identical characters will have completely different efficacy, based purely on cosmetic differences. That would be a fairly terrible game design decision. If you have Resistance 10 to X, the effect should be exactly the same regardless of how you got it.
For example?
I've always thought of 'taking damage' all being one step, one bit of math. No, 'this then that', just 'take the modified damage'.
So, starfinder following order of operations (multiply then add) is always what made sense to me.
Again, though, I would err on the side of helping out the players. Vulnerability then resistance tends to be better for them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That’s not an assumption, it’s clearly true.
That’s not an assumption, it’s clearly true.
This exactly. There might be a race or two with vulnerability in the hundred+ playables, but I can't think of one off the top of my head.
But enemies sometimes do have vulnerabilities. Robots and fire type creatures immediately come to mind.
|
|
. . . Character X has Resistance 10 because of their armor. Character Y has Resistance 10 because of a cybernetic doohicky. Both are the same species with the same Vulnerability. If order matters, the same 15 point attack will do 10 to the one character, and 20 to the other. Despite having the same Resistance and the same Vulnerability. This is a bad situation, both because its tedious to track ( you need to know not just what a character has, but why they have it ), and poorly balanced ( because nothing in the game is priced around 'order of operation' mattering ).For example?The simple concept is that the damage would be affected by what one is wearing before it actually affects the one.Problem is, this means that two otherwise identical characters will have completely different efficacy, based purely on cosmetic differences. That would be a fairly terrible game design decision. If you have Resistance 10 to X, the effect should be exactly the same regardless of how you got it.
Like what cybernetic doohickey?
Like what cybernetic doohickey?. . . Character X has Resistance 10 because of their armor. Character Y has Resistance 10 because of a cybernetic doohicky. Both are the same species with the same Vulnerability. If order matters, the same 15 point attack will do 10 to the one character, and 20 to the other. Despite having the same Resistance and the same Vulnerability. This is a bad situation, both because its tedious to track ( you need to know not just what a character has, but why they have it ), and poorly balanced ( because nothing in the game is priced around 'order of operation' mattering ).For example?The simple concept is that the damage would be affected by what one is wearing before it actually affects the one.Problem is, this means that two otherwise identical characters will have completely different efficacy, based purely on cosmetic differences. That would be a fairly terrible game design decision. If you have Resistance 10 to X, the effect should be exactly the same regardless of how you got it.
While it's a high level item (lvl 20), the seismic spine provides electrical and sonic resistance.
|
|
The seismic spine does not specify how it works, in concept. The item description is just full of crunch. I see no reason to conclude that the seismic spine doesn't just create a localized electromagnetic field that dampens both sound and drastic changes in charge. As it very well could be a localized field, damage would run through it before making it to the individual's body itself.
Any other examples?
I appreciate the discussion up to this point. It is solidly reinforcing my decision to default to apply resistance before weakness.
Just keep in mind that giving vulnerable enemies a resistance can nearly negate their weakness when designing NPCs (depending on CR) when estimating their challenge to the party.